Identity is not stable, there must be motion in the visualization. When the digital identity is a part of the main stream (my identity), it is obvious that there are no clear borders between these two. I’ve digital life every day, I may look at my phone (mail, FB, Twitter) before my morning cafe – or not. I open my computer after walking, it is more important.

My digital identity handles only professional issues: learning, development, virtual communities, not so much about teaching any more. Private things stay private. My daughter is in FB and she accepted me as a mother there, it was funny. I can follow her life and my dear grandson if she gives photos or videos. That’s private.

My performances (Bonnie used this word) or my actions, doings are asynchronous & participative, I could combine these three facets of my digital self. The quantitative side could be the bubbles of the day, they come and go. I don’t mind about them or the brand issue.

I have made a list of good questions, these were challenging enough.

who are you online? do you want to share or sell? what do u want to share? Networked publics, what are the affordances? a friend as an affordance?

Alan Levine’s questions in his video:

Is there a clear demarcation between who you are online and elsewhere? No, not much.

What parts of you are people missing out on if they do not interact with the online you? Oh my global connections, they don’t understand how interesting life I am living at home via my computer and the broadcast internet.

Why (or why not) should you manage your own personal cyber infrastructure? What does this mean to you?

Who are we in this space where the online world is not something distinctly separate?

It is easy to say that I am always this same simple me. Matthias Melcher accepts participation and asynchronous actions to describe his digital life. He ponders the stream nature of everything in the internet, come and go and soon be forgotten. Is it possible to choose a slower participation? Yes it is I suppose, I do not have to run I can walk and look around peacefully. Jupidu got me to reflect how simple I am, she has many identities: speaks German English Italy etc and has different tempo  in different cultures. And she can dive in deep water tells her photo.

Here comes one quantified bubble of this week, my Klout score. I had forgotten it totally but Klout had noticed that I am influential in eLearning and Finland.

I am a dabbler, it sounds funny.The score is not high, should I be shamed? It has come up because Bonnie answered to me and those other activists in the picture. Klout send mails and tries to temp me to activate myself, why?

Google Analytics tells me about the visits to my blogs, it is nice to know that some opens this site and some even read this one minute or so. I am not alone. These quantified bubbles jumping from the stream have meaning – but it not the aim to get high scores. The interaction with co-learners is the aim.

I want to express myself, contextualize and find myself. Goffman used a concept the Presentation of Self, he had experiences about distress, selves are not allowed in all circumstances. It is said that in the internet hierarchies are flattened and everybody has opportunities. Find your niches, said Bonnie, and I learned that niche is not a closed box as I thought from some earlier presentation (of danah boyd).

I don’t like a concept “Digital Identity” or “Self” any more. I should like to say my Voice or my Presence. And I should or could manage my presence better than I have done. I should write a short presentation, key words in my profile sites here and there…

In the middle is cognitive resonance, through which one meets the environment, is interested in something or against something or whatever. Personal agency is in my mind different from cultural, political, structural or technological areas. Personal agency cannot be separated from those issues, we grow and socialize ourselves to the surrounding society and built our identity. Identity is a complex concept. It is not easy to define or even describe it. Narrative identity tries to solve some of these problems. Subjectivity is complex too. Some scientists name it as the sound of identity.

Self, unconscious parts of it  – anything to do with internet? Now I remember that some young researchers in Europe (Belgium or Netherlands?) had found the quantified self. And the unconscious part of self was also quantified! I’ve to check who they where (it was after LAK11).

This week in Change11 studies identity and subjectivity. Bonnie Stewart has wisely chosen the objects for our attention: we cannot solve all scientific questions around identity, it is better to explore our experiences in digital world. It is possible to share and compare experiences.  Some of the six aspects Bonnie gave, asynchronous self for instance is a new concept. It was not needed in old times. So we can try to find what new language we need in order to speak about our digital identities. Is this obvious to you all? and I had to make a journey to find this purpose

I am happy that Bonnie Stewart has a broad orientation. She wants to stay near practice, OK. I start this week by studying her six key aspects of digital identities. I planned a diagram with Power Point and do not like it any more, I have to plan a better image some day. But this is feedback to Bonnie anyway and helped me today.

The most resonating parts of Bonnie’s aspects were 1. the performative public self. I share it via my blogs and Facebook and give information in Twitter and follow others of course.

2. The participatory self is very near to the first aspect, I think. I forgot to draw more lines into the image. Bonnie’s aspects are sides of one phenomenon, performance, practice. Consumer and producer go hand to hand, you follow and you produce your own material. Some people stay as lurkers but I suppose that they are latent producers

3, The asynchronous self is very near to me,my mind,  I want to be free and make my own choices every day. No timetables, no promises, I hate phone rings too and never answer to them.

Those two parts on the right are not so easy to describe. I like learning analytics and easy ways to follow my blog visitors etc. Twitter gives information all the time. But I feel that this does not matter to me, I do not have any aims to become famous and get followers. They come when they come, groups in Facebook are good and Twitter is flexible. Perhaps I could be more conscious about the quantified me? I’ve never liked the idea of branding myself, I’ve thought it is only for business etc. But to be honest: is it obligatory to brand oneself? have I already built a brand of experienced educator, interested in human learning and virtual communities now when I am not working as a teacher educator any more. I am retired from work life after 40 years career. I am two years older than Howard Rheingold So am I a brand?

The Augmented reality – poly-social self, I have named it as an avatar in the Second Life. She was me, not her outlook but her personality. It seems that this part of my online identity is leaving in history, I’ve not visited in SL anymore. My avatar must feel very lonely.

This is the beginning of my reflections about digital identities this week. I have not much to tell about #Change11 because I do not follow any courses any more, only sometimes visit them. Or perhaps this: I was happy when Pierre Levy commented to my blog post about his week. I was happy because he saw me just like I had meant. These are the moments that give energy to continue.

The objective of this research was to explore the level of importance of creativity for learning and then to closely investigate how this creativity might be fostered in such a ‘vast’ educational setting and what factors might be of importance to enhance creativity in open networked learning. Through the participants’ experiences, we discuss the various dynamics and profiles of the participants as they move from being consumers on the environment to becoming ‘producers’ and take creative steps in their learning. More importantly, we identify the elements of the course that need to be in place to encourage and support this move towards more effective creativity and learning.

It was not easy to make choices about the methods with which to find the appropriate knowledge. The Moodle forums were used and some blogs (mine was one of these I suppose). Very few were active producers: between 40 and 60 were active producers, the other 1580 were not active in this way. In the end survey there were  ‘Active producers’ survey (N= 31) and ‘Lurkers’ survey (N=74). It is obvious that active participation in open online courses is not easy and it must be learned and wanted. It is a journey, though participants assessed themselves to be self-directive learners already at the beginning of the PLENK studies.

What helped this journey of becoming a producer? What would tempt people into creating something during studies?

In the active participant survey it became clear that different people have different ideas on this. 64% of respondents indicated that the content of a discussion post by someone else and 56% a blog post from someone else were triggers for people to produce something themselves. It would also spur people into action when others would connect different concepts (52%), or shared a particular tool (40%) . In addition respondents highlighted issues such as the need for self reflection on what was being learnt from the various sources, inspiration from the connections the individual was making and the urge to share what was being learnt, in additional to examples of creative work by others.

Researchers give some examples about participants’ products.I remember the duck image and I remember that Chris Jobling was very active in the Moodle forums and he used the Pearl Trees. I met him once in the web and helped him to prove Pearl Tree – so I felt myself to be skillful even I am not. Great feeling anyway.

The majority chose to be involved in aggregating, ‘remixing’ and sharing of information, without getting involved in the creative production.  It seems that to bring out the creative potential in people and to inspire them into the production of digital artifacts, they must feel comfortable in their learning environment and have a certain level of trust in fellow-participants and  feel comfortable and confident in using the  new tools that are available. There should be an atmosphere that nurtures an inner confidence in the learner to engage in playful activities, to experiment with new and different ways of articulating their thoughts, feelings and ideas, to push boundaries for creative expression and then share these with others. It takes time for people to build confidence and to experience the spark that drives people towards taking that creative production step.

I can agree with this interpretation of the main results. But I’ve some questions in my mind: is there any “new networking” , new connections between people and/or knowledge. Confidence and trust are still important and take time to develop, it is an old and well-known truth. People are same people still, they do not change in digital world, perhaps become more flexible? My next question deals with the role of facilitators. It was clear that they were excellent role models, they shared openly many artifacts and supported participants’ learning:

Creating: participants would then be encouraged to create something of their own. In the PLENK2010 MOOC the facilitators suggested and described tools that participants could use to create their own content. The job of the participants was to use the tools and just practice with them. Facilitators demonstrated, gave examples, used the tools themselves, and talked about them in depth. It was envisaged that with practice participants would become accomplished creators and critics of ideas and knowledge

If Rita says so, it must be true I often have this feeling of being a humble pupil in a traditional teacher-lead course in all these Moocs. Perhaps it is because there is a group of real university students, too and they must be supported. I have been working with adult students in Finnish culture and used to be equal and sometimes I miss this feeling in Moocs.  Principles are fine, but not easy to implement…

During the first day keynote speaker was Barry Wellman, an experienced sociologist and real scientist. He could give me words to follow what is happening in my online life.

It has been difficult to give names to feelings and actions when they are done very first time. Networked Individualism was Wellman’s topic and that’s it. I am at the same time an individual and networked, people function more as networked individuals.

Social networks are larger, it is true. More internet-use means more personal contacts, no need to compare to the old times. Networks are sparsely-knit and loosely bounded – yes, and it has taken some years to accept this. A shift to interest-based communities open new possibilities to people like me who don’t want to travel much in RL.

This Wellman’s lecture helped me to understand myself and stop feeling guilty about changes in personal relations and see the new possibilities instead of the old ones. Something happened inside me, fine. I also liked Wellman’s answer when he was asked about new competencies and the acquisition of them: I am not an educator, I do not know how to educate, I am a sociologist. And he has been it some decades, found the social networks in 1970′ies. Me too.

Many interesting experiments have been reported about Learning Analytics. I liked for instance Bieke Schreur: Network awareness tool, detecting and analyzing informal workplace learning. Professional development of teachers is still near my heart and interest.

The keynote speaker on the second day was Katy Börner: Visual Analytics. I greatly enjoyed again and a hope arouse in me to be able to visualize my learning some day. If only I could use all those fine tools they are openly developing. Open sharing is still limited, I remember from her presentation: Space still matters , you have to work in major research institutes in order to get the voice. Citation links have not opened globally, you have to know right persons and work in certain universities. All development is not quick but visualizations are great.

About visualization case studies I remember Tobias Ley who sent greetings to his children to go to bed after his presentation. He works in Tallinn University, near to my country. I liked his view to expert-novice differences.

I recommend to read this blog of Doug Clow. He is an excellent commentator every day of LAK12.

And what is coming today?

The main research question for this paper is: what is the nature of learning in open and networked learning environments and what learning activities and experiences result from participating in these environments? The study adapted a virtual auto-ethnographic method which sounds very interesting. Perhaps it is something we all participants are using every day.

The study begins with reflection on socio-cultural theoretical frameworks such as social constructivism, communities of practice and connectivism, and a rhizomatic approach to learning in networks and communities (Cormier, 2008, Engestrom, 2007, Tella, 2000). In this part I had difficulties to follow because in my mind those three names have very little in common. Perhaps it is a list of different perspectives. The aim of the research  is to look at different emergent and multi-directional learning activities take place in the context of open environments and to explain how open-digital-networked technologies are used by participants of open online courses. Something was told about he latter questions, but emergent learning leaves open and waits for deeper analysis which will be published in the following part.  I am eagerly waiting for it!

It is better that you read the original publication, I cannot summarize it here. It is not easy to see what has been said in earlier researches and what is new, I cannot concentrate so well . This must be a step forwards I want to believe so. But learning itself seems to disappear always, it is challenging to grasp …

I needed the words of Otto Scharmer at the beginning of the video I embed here: there are two sources of learning but most theories are interested only in that part which has already happened, experiental learning, how we organize and use our knowledge. The other source of learning is to focus on the future as it emerges just now. I suppose I have lived this moment many times but now I went deeper. I had to stop to ponder about it. Is it possible to stop downloading the old stuff and observe, live in this moment? Scharmer described the psychological inner voices that limit us: fear, cynisicm and judgment. Open mind, open heart and open will are only dreams. We have lost our ability to live in the presence, only children can do it (if they live in safe conditions). I like the simple way Scharmer presents these basic phenomena. I recognize it to be true but so what? What is the next step, my step to real emergent learning? Time will tell and networks help..

The following question was about staying or leaving online or networked learning and John wrote a new post about it. He received many comments. The first comment was Ken Anderson’s ‘always that same theme, it arouses again and again’ and then

“People are attracted to MOOCs for the novelty effect, then leave when the novelty wears off.”  And John:  “Love you hypothesis, and couldn’t agree more! Should I say goodbye when the novelty wears off? Sure!”

There are many comments dealing with technology, some psychological factors (my main purpose) and implementing MOOCs.

By reading this discussion thread I became conscious about another basis of misunderstandings. When I say that I want to handle psychological factors around learning (for example MOOCs), I mean special phenomena, not what ever. John told about his spontaneous quick writing that it is normal conversation to him. Consciousness-stream, is that concept understandable in English? It comes from literature but could suit here, perhaps. Carmen Tshofen referred to Downes’ vision in her post:

“The next three generations of web and learning technology will be based on the idea of flow… Flow is when we cease to think of things like contents and communications and even people and environments as things and start thinking of them as (for lack of a better word) media – like the water in a river, like the electricity in our pipes, like the air in the sky.”

Flow in this definition means some kind conscious-stream, I suppose. So I could say that John is much better in this flow thing. I am too serious and always need same scientific concepts to link the actions. Now I am speaking about the misunderstanding which can be explained from diversity in education. I have studies psychology, John engineering. Between us are all possible differences: if we can understand each other, it is great. How understanding becomes true?

This is a point where I really appreciate John Mak. He is never defensive, he does not get hurt, he is strong enough to ask more details if he feels that something is unclear. This has happened many times and I enjoy it. This is also one of the main results of the article of Jenny and Carmen which I studied in my previous posts. Healthy participation of autonomous people expressing themselves openly and freely. It is the key of psychological factors (or one of the keys). The problem which is difficult to solve here is privacy demand – ethical questions while participants broke or spoil discussions (often unconsciously, not knowing their impact). I can appreciate John in public but I cannot claim anybody, only assess my own mistakes. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Psychological knowledge cannot be placed in Wikipedia, it needs certain thinking habits and open mind in deeper sense than copy-paste flows. These undermining differences rise to surface in discussions and often leave without confrontation. Someone tweeted some minutes ago that Twitter is good because nobody follows a troll. That is a simple solution.

Another end of this dimension (ego-centrism) could be so called ‘teflon surface people’ – nothing touches them, they participate neatly saying nothing original ever. I have empy-small-talk feelings near those people, I want to shake them. When I shake John, he answers peacefully and the discussion continues

How to use psychological knowledge is very complex and so are many expert domains. This is a mess. I’ve to go out and walk.

I have a diagram again. Diversity from the left column is combined with competence (SDT) and conscientiousness.

Diversity in education is opened to mean all measurable differences among learners (gender, race, culture, socioeconomic status, intellegence etc).

In terms of self-determination the factor of competence is defined as feeling effective in interactions and having the opportunities to enact this effectiveness. Competence empowers individuals to further endeavors. This sense of competence can be affected by many things, including language ability, overall learning and technology skill level, and the ease of user interface and connection.Unconscious influences may also affect expectations and interpretations.

Active MOOC participants are individuals high in the psychological trait of conscientiousness, geared toward duty and achievement, For example, regular attendance at MOOC sessions, consistent public writing, and public collegial exchanges. So I am conscientious just now Spontaneous participation is different and it is a part of MOOCs too. – Actually I was astonished about Big Five that this was considered one of those five. I have to use vocabulary in order to check the meaning.

Openness (connectivism) is defined largely in the context of sharing resources, ideas and expertise, and communicating and creating new information and insights through networks.Participants will be able to freely enter and leave the system, and there ought to be a free flow of ideas and artifacts within the system. Privacy vs tyranny of openness is considered here.

Openness in self-determination expands as a factor in personality and autonomy: to perceive ongoing experience accurately, without distorting or attempting to avoid the experience, and a willingness to assimilate novel experiences into self-structures. When individuals function autonomously, they are open to experience what is occurring in the current discussion. It can be called mindfulness: a  fully functioning person is able to encounter experience honestly.

This inner state of openness offers a significantly expanded perspective from the much more externalized “sharing” definition of openness and the “no barriers” definition currently also introduces a potential connection between creativity and connective learning. The personality trait of openness to experience is linked to curiosity, exploration, creativity, and unusual ideas.

I loved that description of psychological openness above. I hope that I didn’t spoil Jenny’s and Carmen’s text by shortening it awkwardly. I am so glad that you have opened this discussion toward psychological concepts in MOOC participation. I have been lazy myself and only pondered in my mind – you have already published the article. What next, then?

You have done enormous work by describing /analyzing all the key concept. Now it is easier to choose some parts and dive deeper. Thanks to Jenny and Carmen and congratulations!

Here comes my new diagram

I wanted to save the previous diagram and show the connections between concepts – how Jenny and Carmen did it. The diagram leaves some concepts outside in this paragraph, you can see them too. And I added the daily life concepts in the places they described. Sorry that the diagram is too broad, but you can click it open. I used Power Point Smart Art and it was too smart to me. Arrows were better if I had drawn with free hand but I do not change it any more.

I try a new strategy to write today. I don’t copy their sentences any more – I only tell what astonished me and what questions are in my mind. Relatedness + Agreeableness + Neuroticism were described together. Why troll behavior was linked to neuroticism?

Identity, extraversion and introversion is the next paragraph. I don’t remember that Wenger have described personalities  with these concepts but of course you can combine what you want. I am glad that you mention Jungian terms because they describe the dynamics of human development. I have strong opinions about psychology and I begin to ask why -questions although I try to respect your choices There has been discussions about extraversion and introversion in our blogs (Jenny’s and mine) and I was astonished that extraversion was the main hypothese for blogging. I have always supposed that introverts love writing more.

Privacy, solitude and control are linked to extra-introversion and social learning. Autonomy is found again in this part?

I try to say shortly the findings of this connectedness part of the article. It is a technology-based concept in connectivism and  potential quantity of connections. All links to human relations and emotions mean expanding: relatedness as a sense of personal connectedness, caring, and belonging. These areas take us into an emotional realm. Agreeableness is understood as the tendency to be compassionate and cooperative. Rita Kop has built a model of dialogue. Creativity is described but its links to personal traits leave open. Jenny and Carmen summarize :

The apparent paradox of simultaneously pursuing connectedness and interactivity while at the same time offering the potential to support the individual and that which is “personal” is an aspect of connective not yet fully explored.

Next concept in the diagram is diversity. I have always defined it in my mind that it means all individual differences. Now I understand, and perhaps it is better to limit it into different backgrounds, disciplines, languages etc. I continue about diversity and openness. What an inspiring article you have written!