Search results

Introduces the notion of Distributed Competence and Performance Base Learning. Notes that cannot always learn for the future and asserts that DC ensures that people learn for the present. Provides examples of Distributed Competence Intervention and Performance Base Learning in practice.

This paper aims to focus on the production and application of seven knowledge production Modes in support of continuous innovation societies (CIS).

Seven tertiary educational archetypes are constructed as engines for creating and supporting CIS, with attention to the modal types of knowledge that each produces together with markets for this knowledge.

The most important “on the horizon” type of knowledge identified for the future of tertiary education is Mode III, or knowledge produced by and for the individual. The division of knowledge production is projected within tertiary education through leadership or lagging indicator choices, and the associated roles of faculty, students, and stakeholders.

Special emphasis is placed on the future of leapfrog campus, or the campus capable of, or aspiring to, new leadership status in support of CIS.

The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the importance of modern and forward‐looking educational practices that encourage learner development of open sourcing and collaboration as being desirable competencies for twenty‐first century knowledge and innovation workers. Its intent is to employ the topic of “ethical cheating” as the springboard for opening a constructive dialogue between historic traditions of academic ethics and the emergence of digital‐age learners who are already functioning as digital pioneers, innovators, and content contributors in an increasingly connected, rapidly‐paced world.

The paper examines the subject of academic cheating in the context of emerging high‐technology environments. It defines the term “ethical” cheating from the perspective of digital‐age learning and contrasts it with traditional academic views of cheating in classical educational situations.

Rapid developments in digital information technologies such as cell‐phones, pdas, and the internet are profoundly changing student attitudes toward what constitutes cheating in academic settings. The presence of widespread high‐tech devices already enables increasing numbers of learners around the globe to participate in extensive and ongoing collaborative and open‐source activities that reflect competitive business practices but run counter to the accepted norms of traditional educational institutions. The introduction of the term “ethical cheating” here reflects the growing dissonance between traditional academic views of ethical standards and the impatience of learners straining to become twenty‐first century workers and societal members. A new dialogue is needed to reconcile these differences.

The paper introduces the term “ethical cheating” as a springboard to initiate a new dialogue between traditional academic norms and the emergence of new student attitudes regarding the use of digital technologies that facilitate learning through open‐sourcing and collaboration.

This essay aims to focus on the development and application of knowledge within competitive national and global contexts. Systems thinking concepts are used to define and further explore three plausible pathways for future knowledge development and application.

The approach is anticipatory, utilizing a dynamic knowledge development and application framework based on three futures‐relevant systems paradigms: mechanical (conservatively repetitive), evolutionary (self‐organizing), and teleogenic (purposively creative).

The article projects three heuristic MET archetypes depicting logical paths of knowledge development and application from now to 2025.

The MET framework provides a systems‐language descriptive means for understanding and engaging in an expanding ecology of educational and new knowledge development options.

Discusses the growth and development of US higher education institutions. Comments on how technology has enabled this growth but also stresses that there will always be a need for face‐to‐face teaching. Briefly looks at the software bottleneck.

Discusses the concept of service‐learning in relation to environmental education. Observes the similarities between the two concepts. Defines the service‐learning experience, provides brief guidelines for implementing a learning experience, gives examples of service learning and presents implications for action.

In the following interview Dr. Arthur Harkins — see last page for biographical information — responds to questions posed by Dr. Thomas Surprenant, Library Hi Tech Associate Editor and Assistant Professor at the University of Rhode Island Graduate Library School. Harkins opines that the era of robots is not merely imminent, in fact it is already with us. The development of the field of robotics is not Utopian or idealistic but, instead, “90% history.” Robotics and its future in library applications will be one of the four topics regularly covered by Surprenant in this column. (For some possible applications of robots in libraries see “Future Libraries,” Wilson Library Bulletin 57, no. 6 (February 1983): 499–500, 542.) Other topics to be covered in 2001 are new information technologies, public policy issues, and technology and values. — NJM

This paper projects a positive future for America and the globe within an emerging “innovation economy”. The innovation economy is supported by knowledge workers and by emerging innovation workers. The authors offer examples in support of an innovation economy, stressing the development and application of strategic capital in selected areas: education; culture; the individual; society; and technology. The authors suggest that education services take the lead through a new “prospective” service mission. Prospective education would undertake continuous strategic projections and mine the most promising of these. Both services would help support the innovation economy and its innovative individuals and organizations.

Invention arises from creativity, while innovation arises from invention. Innovation is not the last step in this sequence; innovations must be implemented through small and large changes in organizational practices before they can become operationally successful. The comparatively higher frequency and wider distribution of this process defines an innovation society and its economy. This article proposes a focus on the individual as the first beneficiary of preparatory and on‐the‐job‐services to help evolve innovation societies for coping with five major “divides” currently driving the unequal distribution of global opportunity. To this end, the article proposes developing personal capital through role evolution, rehearsal, and assessment processes supported by “virtual” selves.