Submissions/Semantic Wiki for Instructing Practitioner Learning Teams - A Case Study

This is a rejected submission for Wikimania 2012.

Submission no.

161

Title of the submission: Semantic Wiki for Instructing Practitioner Learning Teams - A Case Study

Type of submission (workshop, tutorial, panel, presentation): presentation

Author of the submission: Karen Guttieri and Alper Caglayan

E-mail address: guttieri@nps.edu, acaglayan@milcord.com

Username: acaglayan

Country of origin: USA

Affiliation, if any (organization, company etc.): NPS, Milcord

Personal homepage or blog: Karen Guttieri Alper Caglayan

Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

In this paper, we present lessons from our experience with the semantic wiki for collaborative case study analyses by student teams in as learning assessments in a course designed for practitioner-learners. We present the instructor experience in assessing student cognition of the domain concept by analyzing the semantic annotations and history feature of the wiki. We present student feedback in using a semantic wiki for assignments. In principle, a wiki format provides practitioner learners with built-in domain relevance, assuming the assignment generates knowledge with expected utility in future. Following Etienne Wenger et al. on Communities of Practice (CoP), we evaluate the relevance of received wisdom about the following elements:

Design for evolution
Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
Invitation for different levels of participation
Provision of both public and private community spaces
Focus on value
Familiarity and excitement
Rhythm

We used the Semantic Wiki for Complex Operations in teaching Security and Development Course at NPS. We designed and implemented a Semantic Form based on the U.S. State Department Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF) that assesses the conflict situation for the country selected in order to prevent, mitigate and stabilize conflict. The semantic form instructs the students to select the Center of Gravity (COG) for the various end state conditions. For instance, for rule of law end condition, the students are guided to answer the questions in the semantic form, and articulate the reasoning behind the COG selection in the structured text portion of the wiki:

Based on the USIP/PKSOI Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction, what is the center of gravity of the necessary conditions to achieve a rule of law end state?
Is it just legal frameworks, public order, accountability to the law, access to justice or culture of lawfulness?
What leads you to conclude that this is where the focus ought to be?
Are there authorities on the country whom you can cite?
Is there some reason to believe that this country in the past, or in a similar environment elsewhere, the condition was shown to be one of these?
Is progress on other end-states held back by drivers of conflict or lack of state capacity in this sector?
What is the evidence for your assessment?
Based on the center of gravity you’ve identified for achieving the goal or end-state of rule of law, what indicator(s) will you watch?
How will you know that the enabling conditions are being met, and the drivers of conflict are reduced?....
- For instance, if legal frameworks condition is the center of gravity, then which one of the just legal frameworks indicators is the center of gravity?
- Similarly, if public order condition is the center of gravity, then which one of the public order indicators is the center of gravity?
- Or, if accountability to the law condition is the center of gravity, then which one of the accountability to the law indicators is the center of gravity?
- Or, if access to justice condition is the center of gravity, then which one of the access to justice indicators is the center of gravity?
- Or, if culture of lawfulness condition is the center of gravity, then which one of the culture of lawfulness indicators is the center of gravity?
- What empirical measures or data provide evidence for your assessment of progress on this indicator toward the end state goal?

We used one team per country where each team is composed of four students. After teaching the same course multiple times, we now have center of gravity assessments for 16 countries developed by 16 different student teams. The countries consist of Afghanistan Assessment, Colombia Assessment, Sudan Assessment, Philippines Assessment, Indonesia Assessment, Pakistan Assessment, Somalia Assessment, Annotated Bibliography, China Assessment, Libya Assessment, Honduras Assessment, Georgia Assessment, Mexico Assessment, Nigeria Assessment, Malaysia Assessment.

There is additional research on what makes online CoP's flourish. Following Jennifer Preece, understanding people’s needs and representing the community’s purpose clearly fosters etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice, but we argue that is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge creation, exchange and storage; supporting communication and socialization online or reflection about knowledge.

Track

WikiCulture and Community; Research, Analysis, and Education

Length of presentation/talk: 25 Minutes

Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?: Maybe

Slides or further information (optional)

Special request as to time of presentations

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).

Add your username here.--Acaglayan (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yaron Koren (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Valid entry (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) if it doesn't collide with my presentation time[reply]
--Lcassani (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]