<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Participatory Learning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plearn.net/2009/12/19/participatory-learning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plearn.net/2009/12/19/participatory-learning/</link>
	<description>Social, active, authentic inquiry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:32:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.plearn.net/2009/12/19/participatory-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plearn.net/?p=1#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Hi Bob: An interesting aspect having to do with the adoption of social media is that hierarchy is not as important. My experience is that in online groups based around common goals and shared interests, reputation, social capital, and thus power, are accrued more through merit and hard work than position, rank or title. I write about this here: http://www.ed4wb.org/?p=164
I think if goals are clearly stated, and people have access to the minds that are working towards those goals, then there can be success. I keep thinking of large successful collaborations like Wikipedia or open source software with thousands of collaborators all around the world, few of them ever meeting each other. Of course, knowing who you are working with can be great. It doesn&#039;t have to happen however, for great collaboration to occur.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Bob: An interesting aspect having to do with the adoption of social media is that hierarchy is not as important. My experience is that in online groups based around common goals and shared interests, reputation, social capital, and thus power, are accrued more through merit and hard work than position, rank or title. I write about this here: <a href="http://www.ed4wb.org/?p=164" rel="nofollow">http://www.ed4wb.org/?p=164</a><br />
I think if goals are clearly stated, and people have access to the minds that are working towards those goals, then there can be success. I keep thinking of large successful collaborations like Wikipedia or open source software with thousands of collaborators all around the world, few of them ever meeting each other. Of course, knowing who you are working with can be great. It doesn&#8217;t have to happen however, for great collaboration to occur.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert B. Mintz</title>
		<link>http://www.plearn.net/2009/12/19/participatory-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert B. Mintz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plearn.net/?p=1#comment-2</guid>
		<description>This is a potent and powerful concept.    I am wondering if you have given thought to its application in the private sector.   Most organizations/divisions/departments are led virtually with little face time with leaders.   Also, virtual teaming is occuring at a rapid rate and it can be hard to know who one&#039;s boss is.   Finally, the concepts you describe seem ideal for another &quot;reality&quot; of organizational life . . . how to lead, manage, communicate in a highly matrixed organization.  Thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a potent and powerful concept.    I am wondering if you have given thought to its application in the private sector.   Most organizations/divisions/departments are led virtually with little face time with leaders.   Also, virtual teaming is occuring at a rapid rate and it can be hard to know who one&#8217;s boss is.   Finally, the concepts you describe seem ideal for another &#8220;reality&#8221; of organizational life . . . how to lead, manage, communicate in a highly matrixed organization.  Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
