Detail your contribution

Task Discussion

• 

  Yves Simon said:

  This task is already developed in my ONPhD portfolio. More details later.

  on Dec. 14, 2014, 8:01 a.m.
  
• 

  Peter Rawsthorne said:

  My contribution will fall within the intersection of education technology, systems architecture and heutagogy. My current thinking toward this area of focus will be to create a badge clustering portal that will allow people to gather and create badges from the different non-obi compliant badges systems. The benefit of this would be to support my thesis that we need a way of collecting together peoples learning to provide validation and recognition. My working thesis is;

  The ability to validate and cluster all the events of life-long learning, regardless of their origin, will provide the required alternative to emancipate the self-directed learner from the limits of traditional accreditation. This shift will enable every learner, regardless of approach, to pursue learning with the same level of recognition as learners in traditional institutions.

  1. Detail your ideas around a significant contribution. (remember this can be altered as your knowledge of the domain of study deepens, it is an iterative process)Build a web portal, with support for mobile devices, which allows a user to consolidate there badges from many non-obi compliant badge systems.
     • The technology platform will utilize a MVC approach using HTML5, CSS3, PhP and MondoDB. Rationalization of this technology stack will be in a follow-up blog post.
     • Solution architecture will be focused around open platforms and standards. A strong service orientation using RESTful type approaches for integration.
     • Features will always look toward assisting the self-directed learner in consolidating thier accreditations.
  2. How are you going to publish?
     I will publish frequently on my blog with papers written for major project milestones and upon completion of significant design elements. I will publish in two primary locations; first, utilize online open journals and second, pubish on wikiversity.
  3. Where will you engage your network of peers and mentors?Online! I will communicate regularly with my peers and mentors, both directly and via online communities. I will seek feedback with all my regular blog posts and provide more formal engagement processes with all major publishing events. If engagement requires discussion I will ask to publish the video or audio chat. I will be very transparent through all my engagements. Peers and mentors will be aware of this before they are asked to engage.
  4. How is your work going to be peer reviewed?Peer review will come via my publishing in the open, my regular and frequent engagements, and through blind peer review via the journals I utilize to publish my major works.
  5. How are your findings and data going to be published in the open?All documents and data will be published in the open. People can request complete data sets and open API's will be made available. Note: privacy policies will be put in place regarding participant data.
  6. Describe how you know you are finished.
     When users badge clusters are successfully rendered and shared from their user page within the web portal.

  on Feb. 27, 2013, 8:03 p.m.
  
• 

  Peter Rawsthorne said:

  I know it is a P2Pu editor thing. And it would be nice if the editor automatically embedded the links based on the entered URL. Could you both update your posts to link to the embedded URL's.

  Be Well...

  on Jan. 25, 2013, 8:14 a.m.
  
• 

  Jason Derr said:

  Here are the details of my contribution. Will be fleshed out from preexisting info on the same site. http://jasonderr.weebly.com/index.html

  on Jan. 24, 2013, 1:42 p.m.
  
  

  Leigh Blackall said:

  Jason's efforts present an inevidable challange to our efforts to build a peer to peer assessed open and networked PhD. On the one hand, Peter and I seem to be the only peer reviewers available to Jason at the moment, and our lack of familiarity with Peter's work (compared to each others) means Jason needs to be extra thorough in his efforts if we two reviewers can be of any assistance. On another hand, Jason's method and style for presenting his evidence is both brief and without hyperlinks or extended referencing. It leads me (as just one reveiwer) to consider his effort too brief, and without enough depth in reference. But again, this is coming from someone not working in his field and unfamiliar with his history. 

  My advice Jason, is to try and connect with others working in your area (both supporters and critics), and either engage them on your blog, and/or encourage them into this ONPhD space so to improve your chances of a fair and relevant review. Peter and I continue to promote the ONPhD project, and slowly more and more people are following this P2PU Challenge, but it looks like being a long road. 

  You may have noticed in my own works in progress on Wikiversity, I actively seek peer review, and document such contributions on the talk page of each project. Foir example: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Leighblackall/PhD

  I hope this reply is of some use and encouragement Jason (and others). I don't mean to position myself as some kind of authority, merely to offer my perspective after attempting to review work to the critieria we've set ourselves in this Challange and its Tasks.

  Leigh

  on April 24, 2013, 8:06 a.m. in reply to Jason Derr
  
• 

  Leigh Blackall said:

  My portfolio on Wikiversity is expanding nicely following these tasks. Thanks

  http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Leighblackall/PhD

  on Jan. 11, 2013, 5:57 p.m.