We're talking about Google Wave over on the Scholarly Kitchen.
Google Wave was built to answer the question, “How would email look if it were invented today?” But Wave goes far beyond email-like functionality and tries to get to the heart of communication in all the forms that we’ve come to know. Wave is part email, part IM, part Wiki, and part document management, to name a few.Ann Michael under, The Scholarly Kitchen, Oct 2009
Come join us!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bb3cd224-f15c-43be-9a8b-c8c14eef753d)
After Michael Clarke's coverage of Sci Foo Camp on the Scholarly Kitchen, I thought there was nothing left to say.
I was wrong.
NatureVideo just posted a Science Foo Camp 2009 video on YouTube. From DNA, to skulls, to puzzles, it seems like Sci Foo had it all.
It was interesting to see how most of those interviewed contrasted the open and informal nature of Sci Foo with traditional science research and discovery.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=404d5b8c-6db1-435d-b75a-9e1c4d98f54f)
Image via CrunchBase
I found this fascinating quote today:
Earlier this week, I wrote about the management trap that occurs in industries undergoing disruptive innovation. David Smith from CABI forwarded this presentation from Netflix to me. It’s excellent, and deserves to be shared widely.Kent Anderson under, The Scholarly Kitchen, Aug 2009
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=616b8df5-085f-42a7-9821-66bff2571668)
Earlier in the spring, while attending the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) NetGain conference, I was asked to answer a question as part of a series for the SIIA Content Division.
As the result of sheer coincidence, Chris Anderson was a keynote at the conference and was also asked the same question.
The question?
What are the new rules for licensing, building and aggregating information?
Chris' answer was brief and pointed to Freemium as the new model.
My answer was a little longer and is included here just for fun!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d0064352-5180-478f-88a3-9cc892e7b357)
Kent Anderson from the Scholarly Kitchen linked to this Clay Shirky video filmed at the State Department by TED.
It's 17:03 minutes of insight!
"What matters here isn't technological capital, it's social capital. These tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring...when everybody is able to take them for granted."
"They had understood that their role with my.barackobama.com was to convene their supporters, but not to control their supporters."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=08ddb67b-3be0-4ce8-aa49-7b307850e793)
Whether to provide a more vibrant and relevant educational experience or to save money on text books, it looks like online education is making some headway.
Connecticut District Tosses Algebra Textbooks and Goes Online, that's what I read last week in the New York Times . Connecticut teachers were frustrated by rushing students "through their Algebra I textbooks only to spend the first few months of Algebra II relearning everything they forgot or failed to grasp the first time."
They rewrote the curriculum to focus on fewer topics at greater depth in Algebra I, thus better preparing students for the more advanced concepts and eliminating much of the review time in Algebra II (which could now be spent learning concepts that were cut from Algebra I).
The results?
"...school officials say their less-is-more approach has already resulted in less review in math classes, higher standardized test scores and more students taking advanced math classes."
The costs?
...they spent about $70,000 to develop the new math curriculum...[and] the district will soon save at least $25,000 a year on textbooks.
That's interesting.
Not only did they seem to come up with a more effective approach to learning, but they're going to save money.
Two days ago, BBC News published the article, Online Push in California Schools.
"From the beginning of the next school year in August, math and science students in California's high schools will have access to online texts that have passed an academic standards review."
Questioning the true motivation for the change, the BBC News article noted that "Last year California spent $350m on textbooks and can no longer afford it."
Today David Worlock, Chief Research Fellow at Outsell, published The Online Cost of Education is "Cheaper" (Insights subscription required).
As David observes, "School infrastructure in the developed world has now reached the point where the implementation of a fully digital curriculum is very possible...even if the real underlying reasons have more to do with budget cuts than education."
Could technological advances, changing learning habits, the growing irrelevance of current curriculum, and financial woes finally add up to a wholesale movement of education toward more online learning options?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d553211a-2df0-4a46-ba67-7bfa0d73975a)
Image by mindseyeimagery via Flickr
The other day I got a LinkedIn group alert from Andrew Spong linking to an article in The Journal of Electronic Publishing entitled Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase, by Joseph J. Esposito.
His "Nautilus Model of Scholarly Communications" was a brilliant way to provide a foundation for discussion. The model is illustrated in the article cited above, but he introduced it in Open Access 2.0 published in The Scientist.
At the "innermost spiral of the shell of a nautilus, where a particular researcher wishes to communicate with a handful of intimates and researchers working in precisely the same area" is where he proposes Open Access is most viable. He goes on to posit that at "each step away from the center, the role of the publisher grows and the merits of open access diminish."
At the core of the model is the degree to which the participants in the particular ring of the spiral are known to each other. At the center, they know each other quite well. As we move out, they do not and "...the publisher's brand is a form of insurance" to the consumer, insurance against wasting time (and, potentially, money).
Thinking about the widening rings of the nautilus shell as decreasing degrees of familiarity, it seems as though this model is useful to consider more broadly.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9d6da7c1-5554-49ec-9a33-493baee966e8)
I’ve wanted to learn Spanish most of my life, but I’ve never gotten passed a couple of classes in high school and college.
I tried again a few years ago. Even after spending a few hundred dollars on Rosetta Stone, I stopped using it after a couple of weeks.
That’s about to change thanks to LiveMocha, a social networking site focused on language learning.
LiveMocha offers me something I was missing, community.
Taking Lessons
Every lesson has four required sections (Learn, Review, Write, Speak) and optional exercises.
The software grades the Learn and Review sections and the optional exercises. The community evaluates the Write and Speak sections.
Feedback
One
of the most satisfying features of Live Mocha is helping others in the
community learn English. Reviewing submissions is addictive!
In offering feedback, members of the community can type comments and record responses. The recorded responses are terrific. They allow the learner to hear the nuances of native pronunciation and sentence formation, much like what we’d hear in a public setting.
As you review exercises and others review your submissions, you start build your personal network.
I’ve found myself committed to certain connections. As soon as I see an email (delivered both to my LiveMocha and external email inboxes), I attempt to offer feedback as soon as possible.
Why It Might Work
It's been almost four weeks now.
I may not be as far as I’d like, but I’m still engaged.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c7d675db-1927-474d-bfa3-5de89f41ecac)
We hear it all the time.
Without effective communication every interpersonal relationship, every goal, every strategy, every organization, is at risk.
Misunderstandings, poor morale, and ineffective relationships rooted in poor communication are commonplace.
Effective communication is hard. It can be uncomfortable. It can make people angry with you.
But, it's the only way to solve problems.
When times are difficult and emotions are running high, how can we be sure we're communicating effectively (and respectfully)?
It's time to get back to basics.
Listen to what others are saying. Adjust your style to try and connect with them effectively where they are.
Don't think it's the other person's job to communicate with you no matter where you are on the organizational chart.
Remove yourself emotionally from difficult conversations, at first. Listen. Ask questions. Stick to the cold, hard facts when assessing a situation.
However, when it comes time to implement a decision it's time to let emotions back into the picture.
If you find that a conversation or a topic is annoying you in some way, get another person's perspective.
Effective communication is like exercise. We all know how to do it. We all know that we should do it. Yet it's often neglected.
