Feed on
Posts
Comments

Collaborative case-study about MobiMOOC

Dec 29th, 2011 by

I have to continue with the same IRRODL journal (see my former post). I have enjoyed reading the article Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence and complexity in education written by Inge deWaard and 6 participants of the MobiMOOC course. I have heard many positive comments about that course, for instance Rebecca Hogue and Osvaldo Rodrigues mentioned it in some Jeff Lebow Hangouts (COOLcasts during eduMOOC). I remember Inge from earlier MOOCs and have followed her blog with interest.

I didn’t participate the MobiMOOC course myself, because I was not interested enough in mLearning :) So I can assess the article without my own subjective experiences.

The article has a broad perspectice, it aims to understand chaos, emergence and complexity in education using mLearning and MOOCs as a case.  I am interested in the chaos theory and I agree with the writers that is is still in its infancy when we take into account the new technologies – we need further research.

I wondered the concept “research-based case study”, I mean that case study means research in my mind. The writers were participants and researchers in MobiMooc. And further: In figure 3 we can see the answers to the question Did you work on a personal research-based project during the MobiMOOC ? There were 40 participants: yes 26 and no 14. What does this mean I wondered. It is not easy to be a participant and a researcher simultaneously (but I always try it myself).

Internal redundancy was conceptualized: common language English, common interest in mLearning, the willingness to share ideas and a certain digital literacy that enabled participants to follow the online course. This redundancy permits complex coactivity by fostering diversity. It is more usual that only internal diversity is defined in these MOOC studies.

I always like the results about age. Here age group 51-60 (11) and years 61-70 (4), so 38% of the participants were 51+. They are well digi-learning people.  I greatly agree with the conclusion that further research is needed not only age or gender but rather to intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. We must have strong intrinsic motivation to participate voluntarily using own time.

It is easy to agree with these contributions:

Dialogues are at the center of meaning, conversations between people are at the center of online communities. Dialogue has always been integral to human communication and growth.  Dialogue is the primary mechanism for maintaing connections and developing knowledge through them.

Some day we will describe the dynamics of online learning better and better. Thanks to Inge and other researches about this paper in which they embedded MobiMOOC and MOOCs in a framework of chaos theory, complexity and emergence.

I have got some names of research which I will go to read in the university library here in Jyväskylä. It is not necessary to get everything in digital format. Now I feel tired about using English but I have an idea to continue with this theme next year.. I want to understand better and deeper what’s going on in open online studies. See you in the year 2012.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted in change, network, online learning | 1 Comment »

Research about MOOC pedagogy

Dec 19th, 2011 by

Rita Kop, Helene Fournier and Sui Fai John Mak have published an article “A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participants Support on Massive Open Online Courses.” The article continues the research tradition (a short one!) which began after CCK08. I have read every research about this topic and participated in many open courses myself, tried to describe and analyze my own learning in this blog. I have found this a very challenging task.

This newest article gathers carefully information about living in open online courses (PLENK2010 and CCK11). We know very much about participants behavior and this information is nicely described in the article. I recommend to read it, I cannot refer it shortly. But how we could proceed, go further? To me, listening some participants’ discussions about MOOC have helped to understand myself. After CCK09 I found Dr Smetty’s Soapbox (which have been in my blogroll since then) a discussion of three European participants, one of them was Wilfred Rubens, and I had a feeling of insight after listening their open pondering. Another meaningful discussion happened after eduMOOC – I found Jeff Lebow’s blog and learned to appreciate the openness, the quality of COOLCasts. It is easier to capture the dynamics of learning via discussion, better than survey inquiries. We need both (I still remember some questions of Jenny, Roy and John in 2009) – but we cannot go deep with surveys and analyzing clicking behavior.

I am interested in why people come to participate in open online courses, what is their motivation? Why do we study and network, take the time for it? It is obvious that very few people continue, there are no massive courses, only 20-40 active participants, so why we continue? I know from myself that I want to broaden my perspective now when I am retired and I have time. I do not follow any courses any more, but I follow many interesting conferences, sessions etc. I feel free to participate, I have learned the basic skills for it. The biggest age group seem to be 55+ years, so I am not the only one. We experienced people could organize something interesting, integrating our experiences to this new online life. I am tired to hear that old people have stopped learning.

I should like to develop qualitative methods for virtual ethnography – methods that help to understand deeper. I love the heading of this newest article: A pedagogy of abundance is not enough, we need pedagogy to support human beings. And we already know very much about it, supporting human beings is not totally different in virtual environments. I have noticed that Roy Williams is pondering same questions, and Jenny Mackness and you three writers of the article which I comment here.

The Visitors and residents project is one way forward, how could I combine it with open online course behavior? Interesting sessions of JISC e-learning programs will happen in near future. What could I do next?

 

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in online learning, online pedagogy | 5 Comments »

Nomad, migrant, lurker, blogger or networker?

Oct 31st, 2011 by

This time I’ll put myself on a web participation map by using some blog posts that have touched me. First I take a post of Wolfgang Greller. He considers himself as a veteran moocer, a migrant that comes again and again, and seems to enjoy the way he participates. He sees happy participants around him, a respectful community. Wolfgang’s blog got me to think that why I am not as happy as he. What is wrong in my attitudes or are my experiences (I am a veteran, too) so different that I have not-so-positive feelings.

The blog post that got me to write was Alan Cooper’s answer to Jenny Mackness’s blog post about a selfish blogger (a concept coming from Tony Bates week in Change11 course). Alan told that he follows moocs through others’ blogs for instance Jenny, and this touched me because I behave in the same way. I have no need to subscribe to courses, I want to be free and follow everything I want. So the concept Selfish Blogger interested me, it is just what I am (and Alan and Jenny). Perhaps “selfish” is not a good concept, independent could be better?

A blog is an own place to gather everything needed, wanted, for reflection and evaluation. Discussion around blog posts was considered by Tony, Alan and Jenny. Tony saw that discussions of Change11 happened in blogs (he was a facilitator during one week). Is this a problem, was Tony’s question. Or is it a normal way of participation in moocs. Alan thought that” postings in small isolated blogs can be integrated into larger discussions. And he wanted to go further to add that if we believe in open, networked learning then we should strive to make that integration as effective as possible. One step in the right direction is to integrate trackbacks into the comment stream.” That is something I can agree with.

Still one touching blog post: Dan Pontefract describes variability of possibilities to participate digitally. His diagram gives interesting concepts: Access to digital world is not clear in all countries, it is good to keep in mind. Collaborative Learner got me to remember “visitors and residents“, that description of David White (Oxford University) which I appreciate greatly.It helped me to understand my living in web, sometimes as a resident and sometimes as a visitor.

It is time ” to re-categorize the foolish Prensky and Tapscott terms of Net Generation, Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants into a classification that encompasses all ages and takes into account the realities of access and participation level” – thanks to Dan Ponterfract for this sentence.

Willing Participant sounds suitable for mooc participation, not because of technical problems but lack of time. Almost everyone tells that I should read more and think more and participate, but I have my work and family and other interests.

What have I learned by writing this post? I need new concepts for understanding behavior in digital worlds. Autonomy is not a peace of cake, it’s hard work in which you have to find yourself again and again. Thanks to the bloggers I mentioned – I used you all as my critical, narrative friends in my learning journey. See you again!

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in me, network, online learning | 5 Comments »

Three years’ blogging, a learning journey

Oct 3rd, 2011 by

Qualitative analysis of learning, it is not easy. This time I try to apply a description of value creation on communities of practice. It has been in my mind since I read it in Jenny Mackness’s blog in July after her visiting in a workshop around the topic. Value can be measured collecting data (Google Analytics) and adding to it  individuaal and collective narratives. Individual narratives become part of the collective one: what is happening means ground narratives and aspirations of the community help to assess value-creation. I copied the diagram here from Jenny’s post where you get the links to the book of Wenger, Trayner and de Laart.

Ground narrative: community or network activities can be found  on the left side and aspirational narrative, framing success on the right side of the table. Participation gives the immediate value, some interaction, level of engagement and reflection, having fun.

You can see the quantitative measurements in my former post. I began to participate in CCK08 and a big leap/ jump  in numbers happened two years later, during PLENK. My blog got more visitors. But what is my narrative, what this all means to me when I look it inside my mind.

Cycle 2, potential value is interesting: Skills acquired, inspiration, social connections, tools and documents, new views of learning. Three years blogging has given all these potential values to me. I turned to cycle 2 step byt step. Soon after CCK08 my research interests arouse and we had a meeting during CCK09. At the beginning of my blogging I was a novice in connectivism community but soon I turned to research interest. I read my blog posts from the autumn 2008 and could follow how I compared my own knowledge base to principles given in connectivism – and I took a distance inside my mind. But I was polite and grateful for the courses because I could not participate without these opportunities.

Cycle 3, applied value can be seen during the autumn 2010, more active participation, more to give to other co-learners. Cycles 4 and 5, realized value and reframing value are open in my mind just now and that is why I am interested in this description of value  creation cycles. I know that I must be independent in my learning journey and seek my real co-learners. I can use conferences and courses but only carefully choosing according to my perspective.

Cycle 3 means change in practice, how people use knowledge capital and cycle 4, performance improvement. I have to define these to myself – aspirational narratives cannot be given outside.  Evaluation process needs maturing and it is hard work.

I have been working on these questions many times. My description a year ago was this:

Now I can see the value creation cycles one and two in this image. Cycles are individualized by combining to my history and my skills, cycles differentiate a lot, they are not the same to everyone.

Now I am living through a total reframe and I need new language, new concepts and complexity.Perhaps I must use the concepts given by Kraut: identity-based or bond-based commitment, have written about them a year ago. Or I could use the concept ‘anchor object’ in social self-organisation, written in Feb 2011. Perhaps I cannot accept other anchors but only science and serious research, not opinion-change small talk communities. Learning Analytics gather the instruments, it cannot become a science, only give better and quicker tools. Digital Scholarship needs proper basics, it cannot mean empty publishing.

Interesting times we live anyway. On Wednesday Jenny and Roy have a CIDER session and I have their IRRODL article printed, I am sure that I learn something new by reading it carefully and asking my questions in a dialogue. More information about he session  here in Jenny’s blog.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted in change, me, online learning | 2 Comments »

Four years blogging

Sep 26th, 2011 by

Actually I have been blogging three years, began in September 2008 – but I have gathered all information using four years 2008-2011, so I speak about four years . I wrote  a blog story in Finnish for a project Open Networking and that is why I studied Google Analytics information which I normally only glimpse sometimes. I learned something and want to share it here in order to understand the meaning of all this information.

First a diagram of blog life with basic information: posts, visitors, visits and views. Total number of comments is 360, via Edublogs.

A great jump in quantities happened in the year 2010. I participated in two open courses: Critical Literacies in summer and PLENK in autumn. I wrote many posts in this year, it correlates with visits, but does not explain the jump.PLENK was a massive course and I participated in a more active manner during it, it must be one explain – other participants noticed me.

During the first two years were CCK08 and CCK09 autumn courses and some posts in spring time. My interest in research about open courses arouse and it continues all the time. I was astonished about the number of visits -that it was so low at those times. I felt that I became international but did I? Some people remember me from CCK08 – there is continuity in course participants. It takes time to become known..

Google Analytics gives information about the countries from which the visits come. There is a jump in 2010 but also in 2011. The number should be 108, it is lower in the image. I do not know why the number is going up all the time. Diligent bots or something else?

USA means here one country, California inside it at the top, but over 30 states have been following this blog sometimes.

I have learned a lot of geography while looking at the map, there were countries I did not know at all. I was wondering where Bahrain is – then it jumped to news and I found the island.

Then I show the map of visits during this year, 2011, because I am wondering why there are so many countries. The number of my friends is the same and I am not blogging diligently, but my blog seems to have a life of it’s own. I do not understand it.

map overly

I have written only few posts and not regularly – but the blog continues its life. There is a change in the traffic sources. Search engines have become the most common source (70%), direct (16%) and the referring sites (14%) bring less people.  It is easy to understand that being a member of community during an online course, the traffic source is ‘referring sites’ – it brought 52% of all visits during these four years.

Still one diagram about the countries from which visitors come to this blog. Finland is the first but it is because I live here and visit often. I have left it away, very few people in Finland follow this blog. I have another in Finnish :) USA has often been the second country during these years, and UK, Canada and Australia have been in top ten. Others have changed. Here comes some information about countries combined to years.

This diagram is in Finnish but you can guess the names of countries. I can help that  Saksa = Germany. Year = vuosi, so it begins with v.  You can see that first years follow my participation in the open courses. The jump happens in the year 2010 in all the countries. This year, 2011, is different. USA and Philippines rises up, but other countries go down. There are only few Canadian visitors now – or they are traveling around the world and visit from other countries.

Google Analytics tells me the most popular posts, too. I was astonished that first comes “Learning theories in teacher education” written in October 2010 and opened 910 times. There was no discussion around it when published but it has been on the top afterwards. This is interesting. Search engineers find it and possibly it is used in many countries, especially Philippines I suppose. Writing a blog means blind helping, openness in all means. You don’t get feedback always.

The following post in the list is “Social self organisation” and it has 326 visits. Then comes “Understanding networking” with 283 visits. Both were written at the end of February this year – I tried to define my perspective to living in the web. I am happy that these posts have got readers. The following post in the list is “Learning theories and technology” from Oct 2010, 269 visits. Then comes my “about” page – people want to check who is writing the blog, easy to understand this, I often do so myself. I mention one popular post still: it is “Learning Analytics 1st conference” from Feb 2011 – there was much blogging around this open conference and so people visited my blog too.

What have I learnt? Don’t know yet, have to link to my earlier analyses and write a new post. This post gathers some quantitative information, thanks to Google Analytics and the project in Finland which got me to check all this info. Feel tired now. Hope that someone gets some ideas about this all..

Tags:

Posted in change, me, online learning | 1 Comment »

My best experiences in eduMooc

Aug 20th, 2011 by

I lurked the open online course eduMooc and participated very little, because this summer was hot in Finland and I was not in town near my computer all the time, and I’ve a grandson who is more important to me. But anyways, I want to say something.

I liked the sites, they were very clear and I could easily see the many possibilities for discussions and co-operation. It was my choice not to participate, it was not the sites’ fault. I followed some Thursday meetings, weeks 1-3 and the last one. There were many new and interesting experts to listen but a little hard to follow outside the Ellumination, only Twitter for our participation. So it was easy to become a lurker. Sometimes the voice was weak and American people speak quickly – but I tried to follow anyway. I liked to meet many experts not only one or two gurus. Roy Schroeder appreciated others.

The best part to me was clearly the sites organized by Jeff Lebow and the MooCasts especially. It was the opportunity to me to see how open online experts created hangout atmosphere which was warm, supportive, open to everyone and pondering. I really enjoyed the Google+ Hangouts 13. 27. in July 3. and 10. in August. Jeff Lebow was very skillful and co-operative in meeting many problems in a new environment: I could see the learning happen when participants sought the right buttons (eye-movements in front of cameras). Humor helped and smiles, laughing, the atmosphere was warm. I felt to be part of the community: Rob Darrow, John Graves, Vance Stevens, Lisa Lane, Maria Drujkova, Rebecca Hogue, Alison Snieckus, Chahira Nouira, Osvaldo Rodriguesz – you were all my teachers and facilitators in my way to global participation skills. I could learn from your experiences by comparing those to mine, and I got a lot of new information. I prefer asynchronous participation (want to be free and am lacking flexible language skills) but I could follow the recordings well. You dealt with almost all problems in open online courses that I have been pondering in this blog of mine. Thanks a lot!

It is people who are meeting in these courses, and the atmosphere is important. It reflects the values: to appreciate each other, to be open and really interested what others have to say. It is possible to become acquainted in some minutes even if a newcomer did not now edumooc at all. Also many problems in Wikipedia and other web happenings were dealt but very politely and friendly, in adult-like manner. I enjoyed to see the new learning skills, digital literacies in action. So thanks to all working fo eduMooc and see you later. I have become a moocer my self :) This blog is a part of my moocing.

COOL would be a better concept than MOOC, was it Collaborative Open Online Learning? So I am a cooler ;)

 

Tags:

Posted in change, me, online learning | 5 Comments »

My notes about some research communities

Jul 13th, 2011 by

I have asked myself about my interests to write this blog and it seems now that I have a permanent hobby to follow research about online learning. I have many nice experiences to tell. I was happy to find CSCL conference in Hongkong University. Here are the links to keynote speeches. I enjoyed Erik Duval and Ed Chi. I knew Erik Duval from LAK11 and wrote about his presentation earlier in this blog. Comment speeches to lecturers had high quality, thanks to Dan Suthers. I agree with him that we do not know what the real sources for learning are, we see correlations not causes.  I remember the opening speeches also, cultural differences between students in Hongkong vs western countries.

eduMooc is my second topic. It is nice to follow how they implement an open course in Illinois University, Springfield. There are possibilities to participate, really – easy to find many places. I joined the FB group (because Eduardo Peirano was already my friend and he founded it). Anas Eljamal accepted me to the group, him I remember from his animation in CCK11, really liked it. I registered myself to the course, am one on those 2500 people who have done it. I placed myself to the Googlemap, because there was only one person in Finland and I wanted more :) I follow twitter hashtags #edumooc plus week numbers. I am a lurker, because it is hot summer in Finland – I want to be out in nature and I want to meet my lovely grandson.

Research was the topic of second week in eduMooc and I followed Thursday session. Karen Swan, Phil Ice and Ben Arbaugh were the panelists and they answered questions about most important findings, methodologies, open problems and the future of online learning research. The answers easy to accept: social presence is needed, student engagement is important. There are many open questions – and there will be – human learning can be captured only partly, from some side. They have many research projects going on and websites to follow. I begun to follow some researchers in Twitter. We were not in the Elluminate session, we followed slides and could make questions in Twitter – so I felt more as audience or an object, but interaction was working, Perhaps it was my language problem, I cannot react quickly in English or even listen to quick American English. Perhaps it is better to read articles alone and take the time I need.

My third experience is a research meetings today in  ELESIG. Susannah Quinsee  had a presentation about strategic learning environment. It was interesting but so institution-bound that did not touch a person who is living outside all institutions ;)

There are possibilities, really. I can spend the rainy days in webinars. Perhaps I link still one, two Finnish ladies’ discussion with Neil Calder about science communication. Calder knows many countries and research institutes and so do the ladies too. Yoe Uusisaari is working in Japan, Okinawa. I love the atmosphere in their discussions.

I do not love my style in this blog post today, I am boring, this is only my notebook. I have to find something new … a better focus or …

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in online learning | No Comments »

Research about PLENK, experiences from ds106

Jun 2nd, 2011 by

I didn’t participate the Digital Storytelling course - ds106 but I followed it via Twitter. I love this blog post in which the facilitators describe the process during that open online course. I can feel the inspiring spirit during studies, how participants appreciate each other. They loved the assignments and wanted to comment and develop further, build and mash up. The participants opened new ways (web radio, web TV). The facilitators ate own dog food = did the same assignments as everyone and that made them understand the studies deeply. I can feel the enthusiasm while listening to the video.

Another interesting blog post came from Rita Kop. She has continued the research about the PLENK course with Helene Fournier. I am eager to follow how they capture our learning. I participated myself and have blogged about my experiences earlier here – and followed their first presentation in LAK11. The background factors about PLENk are still the same, of course. We participants were adults, 27% over 55 and 10% in age group 49-54. I like those numbers. Activity in the basic tools remained low (Moodle, Elluminate),  but blogs were written and Twitter was most popular. It is easy to show beautiful images about tweet networks but I believe that they were only information about what was happening. Tweets remind everything, no need to plan or remember.Everything muts bee easy to us nowadays :)

What can be said about learning during the PLENK studies, it is interesting. Active participation is important, of course. It made students to reflect, involved them in a creative process and it was fun. Participants wanted to give something back to each other. We produced blogs and what ever (see the slides 31-32). But why some people chose to lurk? They were tactical lurkers who wanted to pick up what they wanted or they had always been self-directive learners and didn’t want to share their experiences.  It is not easy to describe learning in open studies.  Some participants assessed that active participation is not at all important (20%!) and 10% said it was somewhat important. How this should be understood? I do not know.

The motivational issues were easy to understand: we wanted to learn something new, to find a real gem of information, others recommended something really interesting,  to get  involved in an online community, see something amazing done by others, to produce something that can be proud of.

I am wondering if anything new about learning is found here. Learning is true in open online courses but some diversity can be seen, lurking is normal as well as active participation and learning with others. Finding something new and co-working increase motivation. These principles are the oldest ones found in learning theories, I think. The research continues and opens new ways in the future I hope. Until this, we have got only new tools for our global online interaction and learning new applications is the main product – is it so? Only new tools or should I say amazing tools? I don’t know.

I noticed some discussion in Elluminate about cliches: someone asked if there are more cliches in open courses than institutional courses. Could it be so? Rita wanted to describe open courses as learning events. Temporary center around the course content, said someone.

Here comes the slide presentation of Rita and Helene, so you can see what they really said. My intention was to draw my own description but I need more time to do it. Don’t know what I am thinking today..

KopFournierCanadianInstituteDistanceEducationResearchPLE
View more presentations from Rita Kop

Tags: , , ,

Posted in learning theory, online learning | No Comments »

Heli’s adventures in global online courses

Apr 12th, 2011 by

I have been pondering my journey through CCK courses and reading my posts from autumn 2008. I was Very Enthusiastic to begin these studies. I found Howard Rheingold‘s Talk from 2005 in which he described the development of human mankind toward collaboration and mutual understanding. I told about my own history, how I participated in the  international student movement, began in Paris 1968 and came to Finland in 1970′ies. Great times, it was societal awakening in Europe. I was pondering  what I had in my mind before CCK08 and what I was seeking for. And then, yesterday, I found Aboluay Eljamal‘s final work for CCK11. It can be seen in his blog.

Aboluay describes three perspectives: philosophical, generational and psychological (with educational perspectives). His description was just what I needed, what I was constructing myself. I had my philosophy and I knew how it contextualized in my generation – and I knew psychology, human empowering. What I was searching from CCK courses were better communication and participation skills using English language, and knowing tools/practicing many new technologies. I had broad expectations at the beginning and I had to work them more realistic. CCK-courses were a good basics about learning technologies and networking skills,  and I needed practice. It was useful to ponder where knowledge resides. Abloluay presented this all, thanks to him.

It was nice to notice today, five years later, that I had had almost the same course already in autumn 2006. Here is the course structure and here is my paper with Sanna Rimpiläinen.

courseProgressive Inquiry was the method used through the course. The learning theory came from Canada, Bereiter and Scardamalia and their fellows in Helsinki University: Kai Hakkarainen and Minna Lakkala. One Scottish University was the partner but the course was open and in Finland the National Board of education paid for Finnish participants.

You can see how the course proceeded from learning theories and working habits to web-based technologies and tools, digital learning materials (learning objects) and then to pedagogical strategies. Evaluation and reflection must be the last part. The project work went through all parts, it was enriched with new tools and discussions. We had Moodle and discussion forums there, we made a glossary with wiki and so on. It was great and hard work, I remember how tired I was, but I could use my real online course (developmental psychology in teacher education for adults) and it was exciting to get feedback.

So it took five years to see how good that course was :) I tried to find the name of our “Technologies and Tools ” teacher (tutors they were called) but I found only the forename Jim. He showed the way to many open tools and he put RSS running to Moodle from excellent sources. I was astonished many times. When I now look at those tool lists, I feel I know them, I understand without problems. Five years and four courses have helped. I checked writer’s names and there was one paper of Grainne Conole 2004 “On the effectiveness of tools for e-learning”. Tools which have changed practice is one part of it, the article includes 29 pages. Grainne has had presentations in many courses after that time. Some JISC reports were also found in our course recommendations.

So what did I learn by writing this?  I cannot assess my learning, skills and competences without contextualizing. My motivation comes from my philosophy and implements through my generation and my expertise. Huh, we say in Finnish, not easy to understand human beings. I could make a list of technologies I have used in every course and see the broadening of tools. But what can I say about my communication skills and global understanding, critical thinking? We could arrange global meetings very well before Facebook or Twitter (never forget Berlin 1973: Frieden, Freundschaft, Solidaritet).

The hardest thing to discover during this winter to me was to understand that we had better discussions about learning in 1996- in Finnish. We used simple email-lists and we could concentrate in the content. After that time  we have followed diligently technological development. I feel sad and I see how ridiculous this situation is. So what next?

Tags: , ,

Posted in me, online learning, online pedagogy | 4 Comments »

Notes about Learning Analytics part3

Mar 17th, 2011 by

Perhaps it is normal behavior to be very enthusiastic during the conference and then slowly forget that. It is the same if you have participated f2f or online. Time will tell what remains valuable in my mind. But I took a screencast during the LAK conference, it is a nice memory for me.

Rita Kop is speaking about the PLENK research and there are two participants in the chat room (it is a fake, Viplav wasn’t there at this moment, he visited on the first day but I could take the photo because the chat wasn’t used after that). Rita in Canada, Viplav in India and me in Finland.

lak11

lak11

In this post I continue only one topic more.

Erik Duval spoke in the LAK conference about the Quantified Self. He was worried about the situation: It is possible to follow so much about our living that it is dangerous. How to use all data for benefit of people, not to spy or control. It is an ethical question really. Awareness about one’s learning is the key. All people are not conscious about their doings, and misusing data could be very easy.

I listened to some videos on Vimeo from Quantified Self Amsterdam, Glenn Wolters and Jeroen Bos presenting a project Lifelapse. They offer tools for knowing your own mind and body, timelapse your life anywhere. They used a concept digital subconscious for extending human mind. I feel confused, really! Where are we going with all this data?

Tags: ,

Posted in online learning, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Older Posts »