This paper proposes a paradigm for managing the dynamic aspects of organizational knowledge creating processes. Its central theme is that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. The nature of this dialogue is examined and four patterns of interaction involving tacit and explicit knowledge are identified. It is argued that while new knowledge is developed by individuals, organizations play a critical role in articulating and amplifying that knowledge. A theoretical framework is developed which provides an analytical perspective on the constituent dimensions of knowledge creation. This framework is then applied in two operational models for facilitating the dynamic creation of appropriate organizational knowledge.

/pdf/a-dynamic-theory-of-organizational-knowledge-creation-22t9dxu55o.pdf

A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation

The psychology of interpersonal relations , The psychology of interpersonal relations , کتابخانه دیجیتال و فن آوری اطلاعات دانشگاه امام صادق(ع)

The psychology of interpersonal relations

New developments in the science of learning science of learning overview mind and brain how experts differ from novices how children learn learning and transfer the learning environment curriculum, instruction and commnity effective teaching - examples in history, mathematics and science teacher learning technology to support learning conclusions from new developments in the science of learning.

How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.

Determining optical flow

Research in the area of educational technology has often been critiqued for a lack of theoretical grounding. In this article we propose a conceptual framework for educational technology by building on Shulman’s formulation of ‘‘pedagogical content knowledge’’ and extend it to the phenomenon of teachers integrating technology into their pedagogy. This framework is the result of 5 years of work on a program of research focused on teacher professional development and faculty development in higher education. It attempts to capture some of the essential qualities of teacher knowledge required for technology integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situated nature of this knowledge. We argue, briefly, that thoughtful pedagogical uses of technology require the development of a complex, situated form of knowledge that we call Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). In doing so, we posit the complex roles of, and interplay among, three main components of learning environments: content, pedagogy, and technology. We argue that this model has much to offer to discussions of technology integration at multiple levels: theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological. In this article, we describe the theory behind our framework, provide examples of our teaching approach based upon the framework, and illustrate the methodological contributions that have resulted from this work.

/pdf/technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-a-framework-for-4g4dquqx44.pdf

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge

Motion parallax as a fact of optics has been known for a long time. When an observer moves, the apparent relative motion of two or more stationary objects in the visual field is an indicator or clue to their relative distance. The theory that tridimensional perception depends on the interpretation of bidimensional sensations specifies a list of such clues or cues for depth and distance, and motion parallax is an important item on this list. Helmholtz argued that during locomotion, for instance, "the apparent angular velocities of objects in the field of view will be inversely proportional to their real distances away; and consequently safe conclusions can be drawn as to the real distance of the body" (5, p. 295). The reason why these sensations of velocity are experienced as distance rather than as velocity is that the process of interpretation or inference has become so habitual as to become unconscious. We learn to see relative motion as relative distance during the course of growing up in the environment. However, this perception is never more than a "safe conclusion." As Helmholtz was careful to point out, the cues for depth are not compelling for the impression of depth; they function as such only when experience makes the assumption of a third dimension reasonable. The writer has suggested that this theory is formulated only for objects in space, and that the background of

/pdf/does-motion-perspective-independently-produce-the-impression-40grw3p63u.pdf

Does motion perspective independently produce the impression of a receding surface

What is learned in perceptual learning? A reply to Professor Postman

It is possible that the simplest visual perceptions are those of surface and edge (1). These impressions can be obtained when the eyes are fixated, i.e., without having to consider the effect of the succession of overlapping retinal images normally obtained when the visual environment is scanned. They can probably be explained without reference to the stimulation arising from the posture and the movements of the eyes, head, and body—the factor of equilibrium and orientation in space perception. The vestibular-kinesthetic-tactual complex of stimuli has to be considered, of course, but the visual stimulus might be considered first. This approach to space perception is simplified above all by deferring consideration of the meaning of percepts until their psychophysical basis has been established. The question to which this approach leads, then, is what are the proximal stimuli, in terms of image-variables, for the \"elementary impressions\" of surface and edge? A phenomenal surface has the

Exploratory experiments on the stimulus conditions for the perception of a visual surface.

The appearance of a careful and scholarly book by R. W. Pickford on experimental esthetics presents an opportunity to review this century-old discipline and try to decide whether or not it has been worth the effort. Has the approach of the experimental psychologist to art taught us anything? Is it something that the artist and the perceiver of art should know about? The title of the book is Psychology and Visual Aesthetics (London: Hutchinson Educational, 1972, 270 pp., illus., ?4.50). Pickford, Professor of Psychology at the University of Glasgow, describes experiments going back many years, including a considerable number of his own. There is a large body of research on painting, drawing and sculpture to be considered. (Actually, there is almost as much on music, although it is not treated in this book.) Many persons from many countries have been fascinated by this research, so many that they have founded the International Association of Empirical Esthetics. They believe that the scientific method can be useful to artists and that science and art are not forever separate. Admirable! But the question is whether or not the actual experiments carried out are illuminating. Are they on the right track? What kind of experiments are they and what are the underlying assumptions about esthetic perception ? The experimental study of esthetic perception is a special branch of the experimental study of sense perception, which has the name of psychophysics. Both were founded by Gustav Fechner. In 1860 he wrote a famous book called the Elements of Psychophysics in which he proposed an exact science of the correspondence between physical stimuli and mental sensations and, hence, a solution to the problem of the relation between body and mind. He thought he had discovered an equation: The amount of a sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the measured intensity of the stimulus that aroused it. Fechner's Law and the experiments that have been carried out to test it or modify it and the arguments about it have been the best justification for the claim of psychology to be a true science, if by that is meant one that measures things. If sensations could be measured, mind could be measured! Seventeen years later, in 1876, Fechner published another book, an Introduction to Esthetics, even more ambitious if that is possible, which created the special discipline I am here concerned with. The Centenary of this book will be next year. In simple terms, a psychophysical experiment is one that applies a stimulus to an observer and determines what his sensory experience is. Similarly, one should be able to apply a stimulus or a complex of stimuli to

James J. Gibson

Papers

Does motion perspective independently produce the impression of a receding surface

What is learned in perceptual learning? A reply to Professor Postman

Exploratory experiments on the stimulus conditions for the perception of a visual surface.

Pickford and the Failure of Experimental Esthetics

Conclusions from a century of research on sense perception.