The Evidence Hub is developed by the Knowledge Media Institute team (Simon Buckingham Shum, Anna De Liddo and Michelle Bachler) in partnership with the VITAL project.
from Buckingham Shum, slideshare, the following:
Ed futures
hub system augmented to have the capacity to sense, respond to, and shape it’s
environment using the lens of complex adaptive systems, resilience and network
science, and through the lens of sensemaking and HCI (hypermedia discourse,
social-semantic web and models of discourse)
Augmenting
the system through complex systems sense the interacting agents of humans and
software, the weak signals that can build up
quickly and unexpectedly, diversity and redundancy, feedback loops, visual
analytics that can reveal emergent patterns and network properties,as well as
the ability to withstand change and shock to the system itself.
Reslience of
a system is defined by Walker, et al. (2004) as:
“the capacity
of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as
to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and
feedbacks”
Creating flexibility and innovation amid
system failures
“Platforms for resilience - enabling responsive flexibility, distributed collaboration, and transparency - will allow institutions to meet such challenges through innovation, adaptation, and openness.”
How do we augment this system’s capacity to sense, respond to, and shape its environment?
• Through the lens of sensemaking and HCI...
• many plausible narratives: what was, is, or might be going on?...
• many representational artifacts being shared and annotated
• attention to the quality of conversation: how well are agents listening to each other and what kinds of contributions do they make?
• informal interaction mixed with stronger public claims
• many connections being made, both formal and fuzzy
• critical thinking
• argumentation
• assumptions
• analogical thinking
• causality
• juxtapositions
• “kinda related...”
Sensemaking: the search for plausible, narrative connections
• In their review of sensemaking, Klein, et
al. conclude:
“By sensemaking, modern researchers seem to mean something different from creativity, comprehension, curiosity, mental modeling, explanation, or situational awareness, although all these factors or phenomena can be involved in or related to sensemaking. Sensemaking is a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively. […] A frame functions as a hypothesis about the connections among data.”
Contested Collective Intelligence
conversations are critical to sensemaking
there is no master worldview
we need CI infrastructures to pool awareness
of
how people are reading small signals, and amplify important connections
Given a wealth of documents—where the tools
fit
Where tools fit… Given a wealth of documents, and tools to detect and render potentially significant patterns…
Where our tools fit: making meaningful connections between information elements…
Where our tools fit: making meaningful connections between interpretations
References
•Simon Buckingham Shum, An Educational Futures Evidence Hub: Dynamic Web Presence for Engaging Academics, Practitioners, Enterprise & Policymakers?, slideshare, accessed October 3, 2012, http://www.slideshare.net/sbs/educational-futures-evidence-hub.
•Walker, (2004)
•Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. (2006a). Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73
•Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. (2006b). Making sense of sensemaking Ii: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(5), 88–92
•De Liddo, A., Sándor, Á. and Buckingham Shum,
S. (2012, In Press). Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine
Annotation Study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
•
No comments:
Post a Comment