Streamline News

Integrating Repository Function with Work Practice

JISC EMERGE Day 1

Posted by Dawn on June 23, 2008

Having never done an online conference before (I’ve used web cams and voice over IP with family and friends) and I was anticipating a new experience. Aside from this I was alos looking forward to finding out the views of the Emerge community on Web 2.) applications and their potential.

The first day started with a keynote from Martin Weller (UK Open University): User2.0 and the Open University’s SocialLearn project, talking about the “sweet spot between web 2.0 and education”. One interesting point he made was the idea of “filtering on the way in and filtering on the way out”. Education traditional filters on the way, peer review before publishing, where as Web 2.0 is filter on the way out, everything is published and it is up to the user to filter what they need. This also highlights one of the concerns Nick is facing with setting up the repository. While his remit is focused on academic papers he does have to decide if there will be a different workflow for those that are published and those that are not. Some publishers also only allow the “beta” versions of papers to be open access. Should this also use a different workflow? The workflow I am referring to is the submission process to the repository. This can be set up to use a human filtering/checking/metadata/categorisation point such as a librarian. On the leaning object side this more pronounced as there is no peer review or official publishing process, other than what we may apply in the workflow process. I suppose this is something that maybe addressed, particularly with learning object submission, by the PERSoNA project and its use of Social Networking applications to provide peer support and review.

Advertisements

One Response to “JISC EMERGE Day 1”

  1. Nick said

    “Filtering on the way in and filtering on the way out”. Certainly an interesting conceptualisation of traditional vs Web 2.0 approaches to quality control issues in education. As a none academic (though educated and capable of critical thinking) member of the Google generation I find the idea of filtering my own content – perhaps in collaboration with others – very exciting; there is a lot of discussion around whether modern technology and the associated potential for large numbers of people to rapidly access research outputs (for example) could ultimately result in a more effective system of peer review than the current traditional method of two suitably qualified and “independent” reviewers.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: