Escola de Redes

Informação

MULTIVERSIDADE

Grupo para conversar sobre o tema do artigo Multiversidade. Da Universidade dos anos 1000 à Multiversidade nos anos 2000 de Augusto de Franco em colaboração com Nilton Lessa. Versão preliminar de 1 de janeiro de 2012.

Membros: 99
Última atividade: 25 Mar, 2017

O ARTIGO

Fórum de discussão

MULTIVERSIDADE NO FORMATO DE LIVRO (BOOKLET)

Clique no link abaixo para fazer download do PDF.Continuar

Iniciado por Augusto de Franco 24 Set, 2012.

Notas e referências

(1) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto (2011). Fluzz: vida humana e convivência social nos novos mundos altamente conectados do terceiro milênio. São Paulo: Escola de Redes, 2011. Sobretudo a primeira seção do capítulo 8 intitulada Ensinadores. “Os primeiros…Continuar

Iniciado por Augusto de Franco 2 Jan, 2012.

IMAGINANDO MULTIVERSIDADE NOS ANOS 2000

Capítulo anteriorAntes de qualquer coisa é preciso pensar na cidade. Foi na cidade murada e fortificada, governada…Continuar

Iniciado por Augusto de Franco 2 Jan, 2012.

MULTIVERSIDADE NÃO É UMA INSTITUIÇÃO

Capítulo anteriorEstamos vivendo agora a transição para a sociedade-rede ou o estilhaçamento do mundo único…Continuar

Iniciado por Augusto de Franco 2 Jan, 2012.

SUPERANDO A UNIVERSIDADE DOS ANOS 1000

Capítulo anteriorEm determinadas condições e dentro de certos limites, acontecerá o que formos capazes de inventar. A isso chamamos de antecipar…Continuar

Iniciado por Augusto de Franco 2 Jan, 2012.

INTRODUÇÃO

Pierre Levy (2010) tuitou recentemente que as universidades não têm mais o monopólio do conhecimento, apenas do diploma. É difícil discordar da sentença. Cabe agora ver por quê. E o quê surgirá no lugar dessas instituições medievais que remanescem…Continuar

Iniciado por Augusto de Franco 2 Jan, 2012.

Caixa de Recados

Comentar

Você precisa ser um membro de MULTIVERSIDADE para adicionar comentários!

Comentário de Lía Goren em 5 fevereiro 2012 às 15:33

Los distintos aportes de esta entrada me ayudan a 'meta-pensar' en el proceso de 'emergencia' de un cambio respecto al aprendizaje que parece inevitable.

En un libro de Joseph Jaworsky que leí hace tiempo el autor destaca el fenómeno de la 'sincronía' pero no llega a mostrar el fenómeno profundo que hay detrás de estos eventos. El más actual libro Precence, de Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Be... comienza con una introducción al tema de la complejidad y la importancia de mantener el contacto y el estado de presencia en el aquí y ahora (lo que en realidad es un interesante parafraseo de todo el andamiaje del enfoque de la Psicología Gestáltica de Firtz Perls).

¿Por qué me importa aquí todo esto? Porque estamos en Escola de redes y sigue sorprendiéndome como el tema de la red y la emergencia son un patrón / fenómeno omnipresentes de todo lo que evoluciona.

Lo que sigo pensando es en cómo podemos partir de una idea que Augusto propone y esa idea encuentra parientes en otros... en otros... y se desenvuelve. 

Me sorprende cómo, a través de este blog (y en tantos otras discusiones que se abren en E=R) podemos apreciar las redes anidadas e interconectadas de un mismo fenómeno.

Ejemplo de cierre de esto es este link que me llega vía Howard Reinghold: Gamers Crack AIDS Puzzle Cuando lo ví pensaba: ¿lo comparto en la entrada de blog gamification o en esta entrada? Elijo esta porque muestra que aprender y conocer no tiene que ver con la pertenencia a un campo de conocimiento determinado.

Comentário de Joakim Antonio em 5 fevereiro 2012 às 0:40

Realmente me sinto peixe fora d'água na Universidade. 

Segue uma matéria interessante:

Revista Veja - O Melhor_Professor_do_Mundo

A edição 2254 da revista Veja tem na sua capa o que estão chamando de melhor professor do mundo, o americano Salman Khan, verdadeira vedete da internet. Sal, como ficou conhecido, abandonou uma vida bem-sucedida no mundo dos fundos de investimento californianos para dar vazão ao bom retorno que obtinha da sobrinha que ensinava a muitos quilômetros de distância, por meio do Skype e do YouTube.

A história foi se espalhando e o número de fãs de Sal aumentava e aí o destino o colocou a frente de Bill Gates que doou pouco em dinheiro, 1 milhão de dólares, mas muito em prestígio e visibilidade (o que não acontece quando dois nerds encontram um par lendo Guia de química orgânica para completos idiotas… Na verdade o idiota devo ser eu, tentando montar editora no Brasil) e a academia Khan foi tomando corpo e questionando o suposto ambiente defasado das escolas mundo afora.

Khan parte do óbvio e quer ficar nele, ajudando gratuitamente quem possa se interessar. Já são 2.700 vídeos que na revista se refletiram em 115 milhões de aula. No Brasil, a fundação Lemann, nossa parceira no lançamento do Aula nota 10, está traduzindo os vídeos (www.fundacaolemann.org.br/khanportugues/), mas sem querer diminuir a importância do trabalho de ninguém, acredito que o trabalho de Khan pode ser um ótimo complemento ao trabalhos de ótimos professores que consigam sim mostrar sua face e interagir com seus alunos, acompanhando outros aspectos do desenvolvimento emocional e intelectual dos seus alunos. Isso faltou a revista dizer. Sim, o sistema de ensino pode estar defasado, mas espero que ainda estejamos longe de pensar em substituir o rico ambiente de interação entre colegas e mestres pela solidão das telas, o que temos sim que fazer é investir para mudar e melhorar a condição das aulas brasileiras.

Para isso, apesar de toda a suspeição, continuo advogando que nosso livro Aula nota 10 (clique aqui para conhecer o livro) deve entrar na mira de quem quer ferramentas concretas para alterar os resultados obtidos de melhores professores. Não é esquecendo de fazer a ressalva a realidade e dedicação dos professores brasileiros que a revista vai estimular os milhões de profissionais que encaram tantos desafios para tentar passar aos seus alunos uma formação decente.

Marcelo Melo, editor e sócio da Livros de Safra

Comentário de Luiz Bruno Vianna em 4 fevereiro 2012 às 23:50

Mesmo que ainda não estejam tão abertas e interativas como prevê o texto, mas iniciativas concretas fora do modelo tradicional crescem cada vez mais abrindo caminho para as Multiversidades.

Segundo o fundador da UDACITY:

"Gastamos noites sem fim nos gravando em vídeo, e interagindo com dezenas de milhares de estudantes. Estudantes voluntários traduziam algumas de nossas aulas em mais de 40 línguas; e no fim nós graduamos mais de 23.000 estudantes de 190 países. De fato, Peter e ei ensinamos IA para mais estudantes, que todos os professores de IA no mundo juntos.

Essa classe teve mais impacto educacional que minha carreira inteira."

http://abelcorreadias.blogspot.com/2012/02/udacityuniversidade-onli...

Como a Universidade tradicional irá competir com algo assim?

Comentário de Fernando A Domingues Jr em 23 janeiro 2012 às 16:21

Não li este livro, mas parece ter tudo a ver.

Reinventing Discovery:
The New Era of Networked Science

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9517.html

bookjacket

Reinventing Discovery:
The New Era of Networked Science
Michael Nielsen

Cloth | 2011 | $24.95 / £16.95 | ISBN: 9780691148908
280 pp. | 6 x 9 | 6 halftones. 8 line illus.

eBook | 2011 | $24.95 | ISBN: 9781400839452

Shopping Cart | Reviews | Table of Contents
Chapter 1 [PDF]

Michael Nielsen's Blog

(TEDxWaterloo - Michael Nielsen - Open Science)

In Reinventing Discovery, Michael Nielsen argues that we are living at the dawn of the most dramatic change in science in more than 300 years. This change is being driven by powerful new cognitive tools, enabled by the internet, which are greatly accelerating scientific discovery. There are many books about how the internet is changing business or the workplace or government. But this is the first book about something much more fundamental: how the internet is transforming the nature of our collective intelligence and how we understand the world.

Reinventing Discovery tells the exciting story of an unprecedented new era of networked science. We learn, for example, how mathematicians in the Polymath Project are spontaneously coming together to collaborate online, tackling and rapidly demolishing previously unsolved problems. We learn how 250,000 amateur astronomers are working together in a project called Galaxy Zoo to understand the large-scale structure of the Universe, and how they are making astonishing discoveries, including an entirely new kind of galaxy. These efforts are just a small part of the larger story told in this book--the story of how scientists are using the internet to dramatically expand our problem-solving ability and increase our combined brainpower.

This is a book for anyone who wants to understand how the online world is revolutionizing scientific discovery today--and why the revolution is just beginning.

Michael Nielsen is one of the pioneers of quantum computing. He is an essayist, speaker, and advocate of open science.

Reviews:

"[A] thought-provoking call to arms. . . . Reinventing Discovery will frame serious discussion and inspire wild, disruptive ideas for the next decade."--Chris Lintott, Nature

"Presenting complex ideas clearly, Nielson explores in his first book how online collaborative tools, networked science, and open data policies are revolutionizing the process of discovery. He presents a clear vision of science's future and challenges us to bring it to fruition. . . . Both captivating and enlightening, this book is recommended for general readers or specialists interested in how online collaboration tools, open data policies, and networked science might benefit the future of science and humanity."--Jonathan Bodnar, Library Journal

"In writing this book, Nielsen has created perhaps the most compelling and comprehensive case so far for a new approach to science in the Internet age . . . eloquent, thought-provoking and inspiring to read."--Timo Hannay, Nature Physics

"Reinventing Discovery is a survey, an analysis, a how-to, and a harbinger of greater things to come. Kudos to the author for picking a timely and relevant subject perhaps just on the edge of social consciousness and making a great story out of it."--Robert Schaefer, New York Journal of Books

"[Reinventing Discovery] opens with a fantastic account of what we can learn about the future of science from explorations such as the Polymath Project and 'the greatest chess game in history,' Kasparov vs. the World. But what really distinguishes it is its nuanced, intelligent descriptions of just how these projects work, noticing what is important about them in a way that few popular summaries do. . . . Highly recommended!"--Tim O'Reilly, Founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media

"In Reinventing Discovery [Nielsen] has provided the most compelling manifesto yet for the transformative power of networked science."--James Wilsdon, Financial Times

More reviews

Table of Contents:

Chapter 1:Reinventing Discovery 1

PART 1: AMPLIFYING COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE 13
Chapter 2: Online Tools Make Us Smarter 15
Chapter 3: Restructuring Expert Attention 22
Chapter 4: Patterns of Online Collaboration 44
Chapter 5: The Limits and the Potential of Collective Intelligence 69

PART 2: NETWORKED SCIENCE 89
Chapter 6: All the World's Knowledge 91
Chapter 7: Democratizing Science 129
Chapter 8: The Challenge of Doing Science in the Open 172
Chapter 9: The Open Science Imperative 187

Appendix: The Problem Solved by the Polymath Project 209
Acknowledgments 215
Selected Sources and Suggestions for Further Reading 217
Notes 221
References 239
Index 255

Comentário de Fernando A Domingues Jr em 23 janeiro 2012 às 16:16

Deu no New York Times:

January 16, 2012
Cracking Open the Scientific Process

The New England Journal of Medicine marks its 200th anniversary this year with a timeline celebrating the scientific advances first described in its pages: the stethoscope (1816), the use of ether for anesthesia (1846), and disinfecting hands and instruments before surgery (1867), among others.

For centuries, this is how science has operated — through research done in private, then submitted to science and medical journals to be reviewed by peers and published for the benefit of other researchers and the public at large. But to many scientists, the longevity of that process is nothing to celebrate.

The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only “if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.”

Dr. Nielsen and other advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction.

Open-access archives and journals like arXiv and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years. GalaxyZoo, a citizen-science site, has classified millions of objects in space, discovering characteristics that have led to a raft of scientific papers.

On the collaborative blog MathOverflow, mathematicians earn reputation points for contributing to solutions; in another math experiment dubbed the Polymath Project, mathematicians commenting on the Fields medalist Timothy Gower’s blog in 2009 found a new proof for a particularly complicated theorem in just six weeks.

And a social networking site called ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity.

Editors of traditional journals say open science sounds good, in theory. In practice, “the scientific community itself is quite conservative,” said Maxine Clarke, executive editor of the commercial journal Nature, who added that the traditional published paper is still viewed as “a unit to award grants or assess jobs and tenure.”

Dr. Nielsen, 38, who left a successful science career to write “Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science,” agreed that scientists have been “very inhibited and slow to adopt a lot of online tools.” But he added that open science was coalescing into “a bit of a movement.”

On Thursday, 450 bloggers, journalists, students, scientists, librarians and programmers will converge on North Carolina State University (and thousands more will join in online) for the sixth annual ScienceOnline conference. Science is moving to a collaborative model, said Bora Zivkovic, a chronobiology blogger who is a founder of the conference, “because it works better in the current ecosystem, in the Web-connected world.”

Indeed, he said, scientists who attend the conference should not be seen as competing with one another. “Lindsay Lohan is our competitor,” he continued. “We have to get her off the screen and get science there instead.”

Facebook for Scientists?

“I want to make science more open. I want to change this,” said Ijad Madisch, 31, the Harvard-trained virologist and computer scientist behind ResearchGate, the social networking site for scientists.

Started in 2008 with few features, it was reshaped with feedback from scientists. Its membership has mushroomed to more than 1.3 million, Dr. Madisch said, and it has attracted several million dollars in venture capital from some of the original investors of Twitter, eBay and Facebook.

A year ago, ResearchGate had 12 employees. Now it has 70 and is hiring. The company, based in Berlin, is modeled after Silicon Valley startups. Lunch, drinks and fruit are free, and every employee owns part of the company.

The Web site is a sort of mash-up of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, with profile pages, comments, groups, job listings, and “like” and “follow” buttons (but without baby photos, cat videos and thinly veiled self-praise). Only scientists are invited to pose and answer questions — a rule that should not be hard to enforce, with discussion threads about topics like polymerase chain reactions that only a scientist could love.

Scientists populate their ResearchGate profiles with their real names, professional details and publications — data that the site uses to suggest connections with other members. Users can create public or private discussion groups, and share papers and lecture materials. ResearchGate is also developing a “reputation score” to reward members for online contributions.

ResearchGate offers a simple yet effective end run around restrictive journal access with its “self-archiving repository.” Since most journals allow scientists to link to their submitted papers on their own Web sites, Dr. Madisch encourages his users to do so on their ResearchGate profiles. In addition to housing 350,000 papers (and counting), the platform provides a way to search 40 million abstracts and papers from other science databases.

In 2011, ResearchGate reports, 1,620,849 connections were made, 12,342 questions answered and 842,179 publications shared. Greg Phelan, chairman of the chemistry department at the State University of New York, Cortland, used it to find new collaborators, get expert advice and read journal articles not available through his small university. Now he spends up to two hours a day, five days a week, on the site.

Dr. Rajiv Gupta, a radiology instructor who supervised Dr. Madisch at Harvard and was one of ResearchGate’s first investors, called it “a great site for serious research and research collaboration,” adding that he hoped it would never be contaminated “with pop culture and chit-chat.”

Dr. Gupta called Dr. Madisch the “quintessential networking guy — if there’s a Bill Clinton of the science world, it would be him.”

The Paper Trade

Dr. Sönke H. Bartling, a researcher at the German Cancer Research Center who is editing a book on “Science 2.0,” wrote that for scientists to move away from what is currently “a highly integrated and controlled process,” a new system for assessing the value of research is needed. If open access is to be achieved through blogs, what good is it, he asked, “if one does not get reputation and money from them?”

Changing the status quo — opening data, papers, research ideas and partial solutions to anyone and everyone — is still far more idea than reality. As the established journals argue, they provide a critical service that does not come cheap.

“I would love for it to be free,” said Alan Leshner, executive publisher of the journal Science, but “we have to cover the costs.” Those costs hover around $40 million a year to produce his nonprofit flagship journal, with its more than 25 editors and writers, sales and production staff, and offices in North America, Europe and Asia, not to mention print and distribution expenses. (Like other media organizations, Science has responded to the decline in advertising revenue by enhancing its Web offerings, and most of its growth comes from online subscriptions.)

Similarly, Nature employs a large editorial staff to manage the peer-review process and to select and polish “startling and new” papers for publication, said Dr. Clarke, its editor. And it costs money to screen for plagiarism and spot-check data “to make sure they haven’t been manipulated.”

Peer-reviewed open-access journals, like Nature Communications and PLoS One, charge their authors publication fees — $5,000 and $1,350, respectively — to defray their more modest expenses.

The largest journal publisher, Elsevier, whose products include The Lancet, Cell and the subscription-based online archive ScienceDirect, has drawn considerable criticism from open-access advocates and librarians, who are especially incensed by its support for the Research Works Act, introduced in Congress last month, which seeks to protect publishers’ rights by effectively restricting access to research papers and data.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times last week, Michael B. Eisen, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a founder of the Public Library of Science, wrote that if the bill passes, “taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.”

In an e-mail interview, Alicia Wise, director of universal access at Elsevier, wrote that “professional curation and preservation of data is, like professional publishing, neither easy nor inexpensive.” And Tom Reller, a spokesman for Elsevier, commented on Dr. Eisen’s blog, “Government mandates that require private-sector information products to be made freely available undermine the industry’s ability to recoup these investments.”

Mr. Zivkovic, the ScienceOnline co-founder and a blog editor for Scientific American, which is owned by Nature, was somewhat sympathetic to the big journals’ plight. “They have shareholders,” he said. “They have to move the ship slowly.”

Still, he added: “Nature is not digging in. They know it’s happening. They’re preparing for it.”

Science 2.0

Scott Aaronson, a quantum computing theorist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has refused to conduct peer review for or submit papers to commercial journals. “I got tired of giving free labor,” he said, to “these very rich for-profit companies.”

Dr. Aaronson is also an active member of online science communities like MathOverflow, where he has earned enough reputation points to edit others’ posts. “We’re not talking about new technologies that have to be invented,” he said. “Things are moving in that direction. Journals seem noticeably less important than 10 years ago.”

Dr. Leshner, the publisher of Science, agrees that things are moving. “Will the model of science magazines be the same 10 years from now? I highly doubt it,” he said. “I believe in evolution.

“When a better system comes into being that has quality and trustability, it will happen. That’s how science progresses, by doing scientific experiments. We should be doing that with scientific publishing as well.”

Matt Cohler, the former vice president of product management at Facebook who now represents Benchmark Capital on ResearchGate’s board, sees a vast untapped market in online science.

“It’s one of the last areas on the Internet where there really isn’t anything yet that addresses core needs for this group of people,” he said, adding that “trillions” are spent each year on global scientific research. Investors are betting that a successful site catering to scientists could shave at least a sliver off that enormous pie.

Dr. Madisch, of ResearchGate, acknowledged that he might never reach many of the established scientists for whom social networking can seem like a foreign language or a waste of time. But wait, he said, until younger scientists weaned on social media and open-source collaboration start running their own labs.

“If you said years ago, ‘One day you will be on Facebook sharing all your photos and personal information with people,’ they wouldn’t believe you,” he said. “We’re just at the beginning. The change is coming.”

Comentário de Renato Siqueira em 16 janeiro 2012 às 9:02

Tive que interromper o vídeo. Estou no trabalho, cercado de gente e o vídeo me deixou muito, muito emocionado. Meus olhos se encheram d´água e eu comecei a chorar. Precisei parar de ver e ir ao banheiro lavar o rosto.

Será que um dia conseguiremos criar juntos algo como isso? 

Será que seremos capazes de realmente trazer ao mundo a pureza do aprendizado sem "etiquetas" e sem "canudos"? Quantas gerações mais serão julgadas por pedaços de papéis inúteis e não pelos seus talentos e capacidades?

A cada dia que passa, acredito mais que encontrei aqui, na E=R minha casa, uma lar para minha inquietação acadêmica e educacional.

Obrigado, Professor @AugustoDeFranco por ter compartilhado tudo isso com a gente e nos ensinado a nobre a valente arte da Desobediência!

Sim, eu sou um Desobediente!

Comentário de Augusto de Franco em 14 janeiro 2012 às 15:19
Comentário de Pedro Caiado Ferrão em 13 janeiro 2012 às 11:04

Olá

Por certo já conheceis esta TedTalk, muito a propósito do tema em discussão, «Bunker Roy: Aprendendo com um movimento de pés-descalços»:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/pt/bunker_roy.html 
(legendado em português) 

Comentário de Cezar Busatto em 8 janeiro 2012 às 22:09
A democrarizacao do conhecimenro, a autoaprendizagem, a inovacao aberta e colaborativa que as redes sociais possibilitam coloca em cheque toda a estrutura vertical, hierarquica e fechada da escola, como corporacao de conhecimento proprietario, da qual a universidade e uma extensao e que se reproduz no cotidiano da cidade. Durante o V Congresso da cidade de Porto Alegre, experimentamos a inovacao aberta em parceria com a Campus Party. Diante de cinco desafios de inovacao propostos, recebemos 145 projetos inovadores de pessoas de 13 paises. Cinco foram selecionados e premiados pela sua criatividade e aplicabilidade a melhoria da prestacao de servicos na
cidade. O que revelou esta experiencia? Primeiro, que pessoas criativas em todo o mundo podem contribuir para o desenvolvimento local, eliminaram-se as fronteiras da cidade. Segundo, a mobilizacao da inteligencia coletiva para a melhoria da cidade pode ser uma pratica permanente, nao so eventual como foi o caso. Terceiro, aquilo que custaria carissimo se fossemos depender de consutorias baseadas em conhecimento proprietario ( extensao da universidade ) foi obtido a custos simbolicos ( cada desenvolvedor recebeu como premio um macbook ) e os desenvolvedores estao agora colaborando com a Prefeitura na implantacao de seus projetos, num exercicio de co-criacao. Com esta experiencia, vivenciamos tambem a potencia do glocal, ou seja, do local, a cidade, quando globalmente conectado. Estamos elaborando agora um projeto para fazer da inovacao aberta uma pratica permanente da administracao publica local.
Comentário de Silvia Lacerda em 7 janeiro 2012 às 7:35

O artigo esclarece o incomodo que sinto em relação á  conivencia da sociedade com o faz de conta ("o diploma é um atestado da capacidade de reprodução, mas é inadequado para avaliar a capacidade de criação"). A convivencia passiva com este freio mental é uma lástima. Interessou-me ouvir vocês: como seria a alfabetização do homem para a quebra deste paradigma? O que seria a nossa escola fundamental? Vocês conhecem algum embrião em funcionamento?

 

Membros (98)

 
 
 

© 2019   Criado por Augusto de Franco.   Ativado por

Badges  |  Relatar um incidente  |  Termos de serviço