Week 6: Assignment

a) In my opinion, you have to work hard, to be determined to finish the project regardless of the obstacles.

b) It had to finish her project and to work hard.

c) This section is largely theoretical, and stems from the notion of messiness or complexity in social science research, beginning with a discussion of methodological bricolage in qualitative research and moving into a discussion of what might constitute a mobile sociology for the 21st century. Characterised by contingency and indeterminacy, sociality is seen to involve practices that are substantially altered by stable and totalising explanations, compelling more dynamic and contingent approaches to sociological research. To this end, the next section outlines my multi-sited ethnographic approach to online and offline participant observation. Special attention is given to the selection of research participants, and how my relationships with them evolved over time. Arguing for a situated and embodied case history approach, rather than a distanced and generalisable case study, the complex relations between seeing, doing and writing are further explored. Primarily, this involves a description of my original research plan, and specifically how my trajectories shifted over time. The last two sections reposition my research project within broader experimental approaches to ethnography, focussing specifically on the guiding role that experimental writing in feminist social theory takes in my talk. I then conclude with a brief discussion of the question of interpretive validity in the approaches I present.

Although best known as actor-network theory, a “sociology of associations” may also be better understood as a methodology where the social must be explained instead of providing the explanation (Latour 2005). As Latour has long advocated “following actors” through the world, John Law focusses on how multiple methods situationally enact multiple subjects, objects and perspectives. Accordingly, to present one’s research subject as a singularity can be seen to “hide the practice that enacts it, and also conceal the possibility that different constellations of practice and their hinterlands might make it possible to enact realities in different ways” (Law 2004:66). This perspective builds on other research in social studies of science, as well as decades of work in anthropology and feminist theory. For example, in order to trace people, objects and ideas as they circulate, anthropologists like Hannerz (2003) and Marcus (1986; 1995:105) advocate a multi-site or multilocal ethnography, where research is “designed around chains, paths, threads, conjunctions, or juxtapositions of locations.” While sustained engagement with a specific field has historically been the hallmark of anthropological research, Marcus (1985) points out that shifting global relations challenge the feasibility and appropriateness of studying isolated places or cases. Furthermore, he stresses the fact that fieldwork has actually always involved some combination of following people, things, metaphors, plots, stories or allegories, lives or biographies, or conflicts. In other words, it may actually be impossible to do research that is not multi-sited, or perhaps better put, situated in multiple ways.

Unit 6.2 - Reflection

This is based on the mediation and facilitation process in which I assist parties in their communication in order to determine their own solutions.

Using the ability to serve clients, you must gain and maintain the skills as relationship building, empathy, acceptance, geniuneness, open mindedness, self awareness and cognitive complexity.

There is a significant role for training and learning specialists in eroding the practical and political barriers to making knowledge management a reality. The case study, expressed in the form of a mini‐scenario, is used to illustrate how learning is a crucial ingredient that assists people to work smarter. Key principles for breaking down barriers to implementing knowledge management are developed for adaptation to particular organisations. 

Learners rely on a combination of experience-independent and experience-dependent mechanisms to extract information from the environment. Language acquisition involves both types of mechanisms, but most theorists emphasize the relative importance of experience-independent mechanisms. 
Active Experimentation In the fourth stage of the model, you will apply your newly discovered principles, testing the implications of the concepts in new situations. Ask yourself:
• How does my knowledge apply to other situations?
• How will I implement (have I implemented) my new knowledge?
• Have I tested my ideas or those of others? If not, what might I predict will happen? Why?
• Can I give specific examples of how I am using or would use the learning around each of my 3 key concepts in a new setting? The testing or experimentation in the fourth stage leads to another concrete experience. You then make new observations and reflections and, based on them, formulate or refine the principle and apply it to see if it holds true. Therefore, Kolb’s Model might be better pictured as a spiral: the cycle repeats itself, becoming more refined and sophisticated with each “turn.”
Coleman’s differences between classroom and experiential learning Traditional Classroom Learning by doing Steps:
Steps: 1. receiving information
2. understanding the general principles
3. identifying potential applications of the general principles
4. taking action in specific experiences
Approach :
Deductive arriving at a practical application from the general principle
Experiential Learning Information Assimilation Learning
1. taking action in specific experiences
2. analyzing the consequences of actions
3. understanding the general principle
4. applying the general principle in new situations
Approach : Inductive developing a general concept from specific experiences
There are significant differences in how people learn in the traditional, information assimilation mode and how they learn via experiences. One of the differences concerns the individual’s grasp of the knowledge base of the field. The traditionally educated have a greater breadth of the knowledge base and are familiar with many concepts/theories of the area; however, their depth of application of these concepts in “real life” is relatively shallow. The experientially educated, on the other hand, have a deep understanding of how a particular concept is applied, but rarely do they have a grasp on the other concepts of the field.

This experience is a clear meaningful event that leads to immediate insight and needs no real interpretation by management.

These experiences will never be interpreted in the desired manner and should be avoided at all costs or be completely transformed to land in a higher category. These experiences can actually damage the culture and instill beliefs that have a negative impact.

This is generally where most experiences within organizations fall. 

Type three experiences do not alter existing beliefs nor nurture new belief systems because they are perceived as insignificant and within the normal pattern of things. This can include things like putting the mission and vision statements on the walls, sending internal company newsletters and making company announcements.

Unit 5.2 - Submit Narrative

The Kolb Model: The relationship between learning and experience David Kolb presents a model of experiential learning containing four components: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.
Concrete Experience The first stage of Kolb’s Model starts with the individual’s concrete experience: an event that triggers the learning cycle. While this is usually a specific experience, it can also include reading, consulting with others or personal research. When writing about concrete experiences that led to learning, it is helpful to ask yourself the following questions:
• What did I do? Where? When? For how long? Why?
• What was my role (as opposed to the others involved) ?
• How deeply was I involved?
• What techniques, methods, procedures did I employ? Why did I choose the ones I used?
• What were my goals and objectives? How did they influence my choices?
• What resources did I use?
• Can I get documentation to verify my experience? Summarize what occurred rather than giving a narrative account of what happened.  In the second stage of writing about experiential learning, you step back from the experience to observe and reflect upon it. This might involve noticing similarities or differences, patterns or results of certain actions. Ask yourself:
• What were the reasons behind my behavior? What was I thinking at the time?
• What trends and patterns are evident?
• What were the significant and unique components of the experience?
• What worked for me and what didn’t?
• How has my behavior changed as the result of what I learned from the experience?
• What conclusions can I reach as the result of my reflection?
Abstract Conceptualization Based on your observations and reflections about your experience, begin to generalize and form abstract concepts about it. Ask:
• What are the underlying principles for each of my 3 key concepts?
• What existing rules, laws, theories, and/or concepts from other sources support my understanding of my 3 key concepts? • Can I articulate depth and breadth of understanding around each of my 3 key concepts? • What examples from my concrete experience demonstrate this understanding?
Active Experimentation In the fourth stage of the model, you will apply your newly discovered principles, testing the implications of the concepts in new situations. Ask yourself:
• How does my knowledge apply to other situations?
• How will I implement (have I implemented) my new knowledge?
• Have I tested my ideas or those of others? If not, what might I predict will happen? Why?
• Can I give specific examples of how I am using or would use the learning around each of my 3 key concepts in a new setting? The testing or experimentation in the fourth stage leads to another concrete experience. You then make new observations and reflections and, based on them, formulate or refine the principle and apply it to see if it holds true. Therefore, Kolb’s Model might be better pictured as a spiral: the cycle repeats itself, becoming more refined and sophisticated with each “turn.”
Coleman’s differences between classroom and experiential learning Traditional Classroom Learning by doing Steps:
Steps: 1. receiving information
2. understanding the general principles
3. identifying potential applications of the general principles
4. taking action in specific experiences
Approach :
Deductive arriving at a practical application from the general principle
Experiential Learning Information Assimilation Learning
1. taking action in specific experiences
2. analyzing the consequences of actions
3. understanding the general principle
4. applying the general principle in new situations
Approach : Inductive developing a general concept from specific experiences
There are significant differences in how people learn in the traditional, information assimilation mode and how they learn via experiences. One of the differences concerns the individual’s grasp of the knowledge base of the field. The traditionally educated have a greater breadth of the knowledge base and are familiar with many concepts/theories of the area; however, their depth of application of these concepts in “real life” is relatively shallow. The experientially educated, on the other hand, have a deep understanding of how a particular concept is applied, but rarely do they have a grasp on the other concepts of the field

Unit 4.3 - Future Timeline

The findings of the studies suggest that there is less learning activity (in terms of education, training or self‐development activities) being undertaken by these participants than may be expected. While participants generally believe that they should take charge of their own learning and career development, they are less sure what actions to take. Signals from the organization are still an important prompt for learning for those in employment; for those outside the lack of support and specific reasons to learn leads to a lack of formal or structured learning activity and a tendency to rely on previously learned skills.

There is evidence from a variety of sources that employees often do not feel comfortable speaking to their bosses about organizational problems or issues that concern them. We show that on the types of issues that employees are reluctant to raise, and identify why employees sometimes decide to remain silent rather than voice their concerns. We interviewed 40 employees and found that most had been in situations where they were concerned about an issue but did not raise it to a supervisor. Silence spanned a range of organizational issues, with several of our respondents indicating that they did not feel comfortable speaking to those above them about any issues or concerns. The most frequently mentioned reason for remaining silent was the fear of being viewed or labeled negatively, and as a consequence, damaging valued relationships. From our data, we develop a model of how the perceived consequences of voice contribute to silence, and a model of how the social and relational implications of speaking up can take away employees’ ability to have influence within an organizational setting.

The nature of your previous formal learning.

According to contemporary learning theories, the discrepancy, or error, between the actual and predicted reward determines whether learning occurs when a stimulus is paired with a reward. The role of prediction errors is directly demonstrated by the observation that learning is blocked when the stimulus is paired with a fully predicted reward. By using this blocking procedure, we show that the responses of dopamine neurons to conditioned stimuli was governed differentially by the occurrence of reward prediction errors rather than stimulus–reward associations alone, as was the learning of behavioural reactions. Both behavioural and neuronal learning occurred predominantly when dopamine neurons registered a reward prediction error at the time of the reward. Our data indicate that the use of analytical tests derived from formal behavioural learning theory provides a powerful approach for studying the role of single neurons in learning.

Ice breaker

Ice breaker

Unit 2.3 - Value Equation 

Ability

knowledge

skils

talents

behavior

effort

time

CERTIFICATES

Blog Submission

My name is Valentin Gabriel Cristea. I am a mathematics teacher at a High School of Targoviste . I am from Romania. I am interested in participatory art to improve my knowledge about poetry.

Sky

The sky is the place

where the words

become clouds

Participatory art is a term that describes a form of art that directly engages the audience in the creative process so that they become participants in the event. In this respect, the artist is seen as a collaborator and a co-producer of the situation (with the audience), and these situations can often have an unclear beginning or end.

Participatory art has its origins in the futurist and dada performances of the early twentieth century, which were designed to provoke, scandalise and agitate the public. In the late 1950s the artist Allan Kaprow devised performances called happenings, in which he would coerce the audience into participating in the experience. The French film-maker and writer Guy Debord, founder of situationism, also promoted a form of participatory art in that he wished to eliminate the spectator’s position by devising industrial paintings: paintings created en masse. The contemporary artist Marvin-Gaye Chetwynd relies entirely on willing participants to create her performances, as does the activist artist Tania Bruguera. In her work Surplus Value, participants were asked to wait in line and then randomly selected into those who could enter the work and others who were submitted to lie detector tests, in order to highlight the problems of immigration. Happenings were the forerunners of performance art and in turn emerged from the theatrical elements of dada and surrealism. The name was first used by the American artist Allan Kaprow in the title of his 1959 work 18 Happenings in 6 Parts which took place on six days, 4–10 October 1959 at the Reuben Gallery, New York.

Happenings typically took place in an environment or installation created within the gallery and involved light, sound, slide projections and an element of spectator participation. They proliferated through the 1960s but gave way to performance art in which the focus was increasingly on the actions of the artist. A detailed account of early happenings can be found in Michael Kirby’s 1965 book, Happenings.

Other notable creators of happenings were Claes Oldenburg, Jim Dine, Red Grooms and Robert Whitman. Jim Dine’s 1960 suite of prints The Crash relates to the drawings that were props for his 1960 happening, The Car Crash.