Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0531398 = product of:
  0.1062796 = sum of:
    0.1062796 = sum of:
      0.07131877 = weight(_text_:2004 in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07131877 = score(doc=1397,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051607955 = queryNorm
          0.32857808 = fieldWeight in 1397, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1397)
      0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03496083 = score(doc=1397,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051607955 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1397, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1397)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

QA76.9.U83T4913 2004

Date

22. 3.2008 14:29:25

LCC

QA76.9.U83T4913 2004

0.0075644976 = product of:
  0.015128995 = sum of:
    0.015128995 = product of:
      0.03025799 = sum of:
        0.03025799 = weight(_text_:2004 in 2391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03025799 = score(doc=2391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.13940388 = fieldWeight in 2391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 59(2008) no.9, S.1531. (C. Caldeira): "Successful, real-world organizations employ groups to get work done. Despite the large number of years of collaborative models in work-group paradigm, it is a little surprising that there are very few books about the subject. Furthermore, most of those studies are mainly focused on work group performance management and work productivity. This text belongs to the advanced type, and is a valuable resource for graduate students in a wide range of courses and for a large spectrum of professionals interested in collaborative work. Due to its advanced level, some topics are relatively difficult to understand if the reader does not have some background in collaborative work and group cognition. Students who use this book will rapidly understand the most important topics of the science of collaboration for computer-supported cooperative work and computer-supported collaborative learning, and their relation to the business world of our days. The main concern and fundamental idea of this book is to set its focus primarily on work group, and not on individuals. Stahl's baseline is to use the science of collaboration for computer-supported cooperative work and computer-supported collaborative learning to conduct comparative studies on group interaction, group meaning, group cognition, group discourse, and thinking. The book is divided into three distinct parts. The first one is about the design of computer support for collaborative work and presents eight studies centered on software tools and their particular applications: The first three are AI applications for collaborative computer-supported cooperative work and computer-supported collaborative learning, the fourth and the fifth are about collaborative media, and the last ones are a combination of computational technology and collaborative functions. The second part is focused on the analysis on knowledge building in the collaborative work of small groups. It is developed with support on five essays published by Stahl from 2000 to 2004. In the first of those chapters, he describes a model of collaborative knowledge building and how to share knowledge production. The second criticizes some cooperative work and collaborative learning research methodologies that make the collaborative phenomena hard to perceive. The remaining chapters mostly provide mechanisms to understand in new and better ways collaborative processes. The third part contains the theoretical corpus of the book. Chapters 14 through 21 contain the most recent of Stahl's contributions to the theoretical foundations of computer-supported cooperative work and computer-supported collaborative learning. Chapters 16 to 18 provide much material about topics directly related to group cognition research and collaborative work in modern organizations. Finally, the last part of the book contains an exhaustive list of references that will be of great value to all interested in the multiple aspects and fields of cooperative work and collaborative learning."

0.006303748 = product of:
  0.012607496 = sum of:
    0.012607496 = product of:
      0.025214992 = sum of:
        0.025214992 = weight(_text_:2004 in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025214992 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.1161699 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Teile und sammle könnte der moderne Leitspruch für das Phänomen Social Tagging heißen. Die freie und kollaborative Verschlagwortung digitaler Ressourcen im Internet gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen. Der 2003 gegründete Social Bookmarking Dienst Del.icio.us und die 2004 entstandene Bildersammlung Flickr waren erste Anwendungen, die Social Tagging anboten und noch immer einen Großteil der Nutzer/innen an sich binden. Beim Blick in die Literatur wird schnell deutlich, dass Social Tagging polarisiert: Von Befürwortern wird es als eine Form der innovativen Wissensorganisation gefeiert, während Skeptiker die Dienste des Web 2.0 inklusive Social Tagging als globale kulturelle Bedrohung verdammen. Launischer Hype oder Quantensprung was ist dran am Social Tagging? Mit der Zielsetzung, mehr über die Erwartungen, Anwendungsbereiche und Nutzungsweisen zu erfahren, wurde im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen ein Workshop der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (GMW) durchgeführt. Die vorliegende Publikation fasst die Ergebnisse der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung zusammen.