 | Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Thanks a lot Frances for organising the event, and Frances, Roy and Ulop for the facilitation. Thanks George and Stephen for supporting us in this organisation of event.
I greatly enjoyed the session, especially with all of us - Leila, Eduardo, Heli, Roy and Ailsa and everybody else sharing in an enjoyable and relaxed environment. You have made us all shine!
As this is our first self organised Elluminate Session (apart from the Visitors and Residence session by David), I reckon this is a great success, as we have all tried. So congratulations to us all.
I think we could organise and conduct more sessions like this, so as to have more practice in both facilitation and presentation, on top of the discussion in the forum.
Great learning for us, isn't it?
John |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi John, I agree, that was fun to be involved with and the presenters all had great topics and presentations. It is great that we were afforded this learning opportunity; hopefully there will be other opportunities going forward. One thing I wanted to bring up before I forget: After Roy's presentation there was a discussion in the chat room that led into comments about behaviourism, and constraints etc. The jist of it as I understood it was that Roy's proposition is that constraints are required in order for emergent knowledge to occur (or at least to increase the probability of it occurring, or conversely to reduce the probability of it not occurring). Without constraints, trolls, operating in too much freedom, would act to inhibit the process of emergency. I suggested this sounded like the b-word, and Ailsa remarked that cause-effect was not indicated in Roy's proposition. However, is it not suggestive of a cause-effect relationship to propose that constraints are required in order to permit emergency? |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
I was attempting to point out not that there was no cause /effect, but that it wasnt always anticipated, wasnt unidirectional, and so not as lineal as behaviourist (and many other approaches) approaches would see it.  |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Great session. Many thanks again Frances for setting this one up and running with it, and thanks to everyone for a fascinating self-organised event. Heli and Ailsa, thanks for showing us how it should be done, combining the aesthetics and so many other things with the 'cognitive' stuff. Less is more, Ailsa! Complexity ... Complex events are by definition unpredictable, so behaviourist? not. Period. The question is not whether some things are more or less predictable (large or small error bars, or standard deviations), but whether there are some things (many things in fact) which are quite unpredictable, because they are "complex" in CAST (complex adaptive systems theory) terms, not in the everyday sense of "complex". So what is 'complex' -(in CAST)? It consists of: Self-organising systems (see Conway's Life), which may also be Self-reproducing (see computer viruses, biological viruses, and genes/memes/temes), which enjoy Substantial degrees of freedom (see CCK08/09), and which are likely to produce New, surprising, emergent events and properties, depending on the Constraints in place in a particular context (see the comparison between CCK 08 and 09, and look at Twitter as a paradigm case study): So... CCK08: no de jure constraints, at least one Troll on site, and with an implicit 'good behaviour' constraint in place, which is not made explicit, and which has no de facto effective sanctions, as the implicit constraint of modelling good behaviour didn't cut any ice with the Troll, nor was the 'Do not feed the trolls' (DNFTT) rule known to everyone in CCK08, and it certainly wasnt applied. vs. CCK09: de facto constraints (Troll self-excluded), and implicit constraints (modelled good beviour). The question is not whether there were any constraints and sanctions in place in 08 or 09. There were constraints and sanctions in place in both. There are two, linked questions: 1. What type of constraints best provide conditions for emergence? In CAST terms, negative constraints, i.e. constraining what can NOT be done facilitates emergence, and, paradoxically, autonomy. On the other hand, positive constraints, e.g. "you must do 3 assignments on the following topics, in text only, with references, against predetermined outcomes", are most likely going to exclude emergence. [So, does that mean we have to redesign our curricula, completely 'upside down'? Yes, and the design of CCK08/09 goes part of the way in designing 'courses' upside down for the same reason.] 2. Constraints without sanctions are just hot air. So what sanctions should be in place, and i) how can you avoid imposing them, by offering alternatives (diversions, etc), and ii) if you have to impose them, how will you go about doing so, to ensure that they are swift and effective? - And this means there is a 'you' in the picture, (singular or plural) 'you' cant be air-brushed out. To put it plainly: 'freedom is conferrred -either by an authority, or by a consensus, but conferred it is'. This is the simple (simplified) version. Life online is more interesting and complicated than that, and one of the problems with the DNFTT rule was that the Troll was quite interesting at times, so it was difficult to know whether to apply it. And ... Even under the most adverse conditions, emergence will out. (See Blackmore [the temes link above] on why evolution is a 'must').
|
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Roy. Read the wikipedia definition of Troll you provided. There seems to be two major ingredients required to achieve this classification: 1. ...someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with 2. ...the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion... How was it determined that Catherine's intent was such? Who labelled her a troll? |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Ken, Troll is as troll does. I have no insights into troll intentions, so I use the term when the data in front on me indicates that not only the trolling, but also the responding goes off-message into negative and personal 'flaming'. (Could be worth a wikipedia edit on 'intent', no?) As I said above, some of her comments and critiques were worth reading and responding to, so the DNFTT rule was difficult to apply, particularly because it needs to be communicated, and it needs a consensus to work. And, of course, someone needs to call the troll a troll, the troll knew the rule, and part of her provocation was to dare the instructors to call it, which they declined. This is always a matter of judgement. Individual participants and instructors will have different views on whatever judgement is made. The data we have in our research in CCK08 is, by the nature of sampling and self-selection (in and out), incomplete. However, the data do indicate that autonomy was diminished, in one sense at least. There is no 'value judgement' in that, per se; it should stand or fall as a descriptive statement. What is pertinent and interesting is that the way autonomy is operationally defined is itself 'emergent' within the practice (not theory) of a particular learning ecology, as it runs/flows (we need better terms here too - I would not like to use 'develops' either, as that has its own built in teleology, which we need to guard against when we start talking in terms of 'learning ecologies'). So autonomy is as autonomy does, too. No guarantees and no simple answers. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Roy. Thanks for taking the time to respond and lay out your position so succinctly. I do not have the depth/breadth of on-line experience that others in these courses appear to have, so the use of terminology like 'troll' and 'flaming' is quite foreign to me. So I acknowledge that you believe Catherine was a troll, but I still can't accept that label being applied to her conduct, nor do I like it much. I find it disturbing to stereotype behaviour, and I think that to label a person a troll is troll-like in itself. Catherine appeared quite upset to have been labelled so. But again, please view my position in the context in which it exists: My experience of this behaviour and terminology is limited. I would never have thought to label Catherine or anyone else a troll, the term meant nothing to me and I still struggle with understanding it. I would rather have described her approach as: direct, provocative, confrontational, stamina-tical. Now, Catherine was one also to apply labels; for example, I believe she labelled Steven and George techno-communists. I think she got George wrong on that label. Further, by other definitions proferred about troll-behaviour, it seems to me that there may have been others exhibiting 'troll-like' behaviours in cck08. Frances' you-tube video seems to illustrate Stephen shutting down discussion/discouraging novice participants. I was confronted by Catherine on at least one occasion. After I recovered from my emotional response, upon reflection, I determined that she was more right and I was more wrong in the respective positions on the issue. I was appreciative that she had taken the time to address the issue I had spoken about. It did not deter me from further participation. In my view, resilience and a tough-hide are welcome attributes in forum-like debate. How good (objective) is your data? Survey, wasn't it? I had a quick look at the questions when released. My initial reaction after reading the questions were that they almost suggested certain responses i.e. there was an element of subjectivity in the questions that may skew the responses. I didn't submit my responses, as a consequence. Again, context: I am not a researcher by trade, my research experience is limited, but I was taught to question the perspective of any research offered: 'where are the researchers coming from' in the sense of 'do not consider any research to be fully objective'. This questioning of course does not lessen the import of any particular research, rather, it frames it. ...all the while acknowledging that it really doesn't matter who considers who a troll, and that name-calling really doesn't help... (WOW- I really exceeded the word-count this time!!  ) |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Ken, interesting, and incisive response. Thanks. I suppose it depends on where you are coming from. I caricature (a bit) ... Scenario 1: traditional online faciliator (if there is such a thing!) Assumptions:
Scenario 2: network surfer Assumptions:
I suppose we are all mixtures of both, at times. I come into events like CCK primarily in #1. But I can ride with the network surfers when necessary, up to a point. The point is where #2 starts to undermine #1. The Troll label is descriptive and (in my book) operational. Creating CODA-space /useful learning ecologies requires boundaries, constraints, or whatever you want to call them. Completely open parties (material or virtual) are generally invitations for someone to behave badly. (And you cant depend on luck-ing out, as happened in CCK09). So I dont like the name calling (its ironical, of course, if you use it against a name caller), but the alternative (Trolls rule, OK) is so much worse. The point is not to call names, but to identify behaviour: "That behaviour is Troll-ish, its not OK to do that here, so please stay, but on those terms ... " Research? The survey was not perfect, we could improve on it I'm sure. What it did tell us in both the survey and in the email interviews (in less 'tempered' language, quite often) was that several aspects of behaviour in the forums precluded people from participating. I suspect that if we had had more time and energy to explore further, we would have found a sharp disctintion between the few hardened network surfers (myself included, at times) who were prepared to ride the waves whatever the weather, and a large majority who were really put off (add intemperate language to taste) - but thats all speculative hypothesis, the research could only go with the data we had. There are lots of possible responses to this. My main focus in this context is, did this affect the affordances for learning, and I think it did. In part, substantially negatively, in part just displacement. One of the affordances I most value in online networks is the affordance (or set of affordances) brought about by the absence of alpha-primate behaviour. That's just my choice of ecological niche, I suppose. |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Ken and Roy - I agree that our survey could have be improved - I have yet to see a survey that couldn't. Our design process was very interesting though. We rigorously examined every statement and through a process of concept mapping determined which statements should be included in the survey. The survey provided us with quantitative data - but more interesting for me was the qualitative data. The survey enabled us, following a lenghty analysis of the results, to identify the questions that we wanted to ask people through email interviews. We gathered some really rich data from the interviews (far more than we were able to report in the research papers) and it is this data that has informed our thinking. it was a fascinating and very rewarding process. Jenny |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Jenny, I had always thought that the combination of Quants and Quals was the best way to go, but this process demonstrated to me just how powerful a combination that is. And working in a "peer leadership" reseach team added something extra. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
HI Roy, thanks for taking the time to express your preferences in detail. I guess I am coming from a different place. One of my paradigms is that conflict can be productive. I acknowledge that the amount of conflict acceptable differs among individual tastes, and I am not talking about physical conflict, while again acknowledging that verbal conflict can be harmful to many. In short: loud, strong arguments are ok by me and I prefer to stay away from ad hominem attacks. For example, I like how Catherine defended herself: Which is the most successful network in history Trolling for Trolls |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
>One of the affordances I most value in online networks is the affordance (or set of affordances) brought about by the absence of alpha-primate behaviour. That's just my choice of ecological niche, I suppose. I guess we would all like to create an ecology in our own likeness... However, it is therein that I fear the power of an authority such as a facilitator, particularly in a forced-subscription education system. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Ken, aren't we all mirrors of ourselves ('we are all one') ? I love feisty, and dissonance, and even disruptive, and use them all in virtual and material workshops, but not distractions, particularly if they are ad hominem. They're too smart, too easy, and at the end of the day, lazy. I find it difficult to tolerate smart-lazy (vary the term to taste). To operationalise these distinctions, of course, needs a very fine 'cut'. I suppose what I take from OS networks is the right to fork, on the one hand, and the obligation to fork, on the other hand. So the first course of action (with petulant people of any age) is always divert/ fork, not exclude. Where possilbe, I am a firm believer in getting flamers and trollers into the same material space for them (not me) to resolve ad hominem storms in virtual space. Some time back I did get two colleagues to agree to a ban on any emails between them for 14 days, as they were retreating into their offices (within 5 meters of each other) to send yet more flaming emails to each other. It worked. With Catherine, I got to the stage where I found myself doing far too much work sifting out the pearls from the mud - and there were some good pearls in there. It wasnt worth the mud/candle. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Thanks for explaining complexity Roy. I do wonder if we are still describing emergent 'properties' as being unpredictable only because we have not yet developed the capacity to make the predictions. For example, an early human viewing the procession of heavenly bodies might initially have thought that phenomena/system to be 'complex' and beyond prediction as well? Until someone mapped the bodies better? And created astrology/nomy? The emergence you are talking about seems to be related to courses? as in we can predict that not much emergence will occur under positive constraints (dictated assignments), but the probability of emergence emerging increases under negative constraints? |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Ulop, exactly! The point about the heavenly bodies (and much else besides) is that you can 'treat' their behaviour as mythical, positivist, complex, etc. etc, and we have as a species done all of the above, mostly quite convincingly - for a while. More to the point though. There are some things (try Conway's life, or Cellular Automata, as in Stephen Wolfram if you have the time) which are not only unpredictable (profoundly so), but which are also the result (in a non-predictive way, if you follow) of a very simple base state, with very simple rules of interaction. So, unpredictability, from simple states and simple rules, now that's radically different. As Wolfram points out, you treat these kinds of events as predictable at your peril (i.e. you might go mad trying to find the algorithms). Scale (micro and macro) comes into it too, but I am not up on either of the far ends of the physics spectrum. Negative contraints tend to produce emergence. Exactly. Postive constraints (if you are forceful enough) produce compliance. Depends whether you like surprises! |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Roy I have listened to the Elluminate session recording and blogged about it. A great example of learners taking control of their own learning. A really interesting thing to do would be an interview of each of the Elluminate session participants to explore exactly what was learned - was it content or process or both or something entirely different? But that's not why I decided to respond tot this post. Needless to say (having worked together for quite a while on our research - but still not having met) I am not surprised at your post here. The CCK08 Troll situation makes sense - I was there - I experienced it and I was one of the people who withdrew into the blogs - although I may have done that anyhow, as I simply could not keep up with forums. I haven't been keeping up very well with CCK09 - but I do know that it has been quieter and calmer with no Troll/s. But I do think that your statement: de facto constraints (Troll self-excluded), and implicit constraints (modelled good beviour) - could be an assumption. We have no evidence of self-exclusion of a Troll (not being there doesn't mean self-exclusion) - nor do we have evidence of implicit constraints. Perhaps no-one feels strongly enough about connectivism to ague against it, this year. So it could be good behaviour, simply because there is no bad behaviour. Despite this - I do intuitively feel that constraints are probably necessary - but I haven't quite worked out why yet. In the back of my mind it has something to do with protecting those who cannot protect themselves - but I need to think more about this. I'll go away and think now - could take a while! Jenny |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Jenny (and all) I would be very intested in proposition #1. I dont know if anyone is available, but I would love to apply the interactive story telling/personal sense making method we use. If anyone is interested, let me know. The first phase could be done online. It requires no preparation. Trolls, exactly. The fact of absence doesnt mean self-exclusion, let alone penitence (not applicable in this case!). I keep hearing Ron Barnett's phrase: "the fragility of the will to learn" (in HE in his case, we are not talking about kindergarten - what a lovely term, kindergarten, incidentally, maybe we can borrow it, and come up with a mashup, something like 'inter-garten', so much better than all these technical names, no?). I found this 'fragility of will' stuff odd when I first read it (in Barnett's latest book), but the more I think about it, the more I think its an essential component of peer learning/peer leadership/ locating the (peer)teachers in the network/enabling all of the above. In his terms, 'becoming' (and 'being') a learner is a serious business. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Roy. Wow. Fragility of will to learn. I guess that would be one understanding. I cannot help but think that maybe this individual (and others of the same ilk) take themselves and learning TOO seriously? |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
We need to practice online conferencing. Read what happened to Danah Boyd when she gave a talk at Web2.0 Expo spectacle at Web2.0 Expo... from my perspective and also about the great presentation from George Siemens at the Learntrends 2009 online conference I was so nervous before my 1st online presentation at the April 2009 Learntrends Conference Thanks Jay Cross for my 61 min of Fame Online I understand what Leila and Heli where feeling during their presentations!! |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
It sounds great. Roy, I messed up a little bit since I had microphone problems and I had to do my presentation through the chat but if I can be any help I´m ready to participate. After thinking about the Elluminate session where I participated, I realized that I learnt how much conversations gain when topics are delimited in advance. I have a tendency to dispersion and being forced into focusing on one particular idea helps me develop both my learning and communication skills. Apart from knowing microphones better now, these where my challenges and lessons learnt: These were the challenges: - Having only one slide and three minutes to present a question and arise other people´s interest was in itself a constraint. - Having to do it in front of people whom I admire and who are experts or very good at a particular field was another constraint that added a pressure that I need in order to be really productive. - Having to do it orally, in a language that´s not my native language, was another challenge. These were the results: - I gained practice speaking “in public” and synthesizing ideas - I benefited from the combination of having some ideas developed on my mind in advance+ spontaneous talk. Conversations are so much richer when topics are prepared, read and interiorized in advance - I felt part of the CCK09 more than any other time before So I volunteer for telling this "story" any time. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Leila, thanks. Do you have a decent mike connection now? A headphone set with a mike is all you need,and we can set up a time. What is your availability in GMT terms? Thanks Roy |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
| Hi, Roy. I have a new USB microphone that I´ll try this evening. I´ll get back to you as soon as I know if the connection is OK. I´ll let you know my availability too, but this Tuesday is a holiday in Spain so pretty much any time that day (except very early in the morning) could work for me. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
| Thanks to all!! John, I agree with you. This was our real connectivism session, organized and facilitated by ourselves. Yes, let's have more short slide presentations, like today. We all learn: facilitators, presenters and attendees |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
| I'll try out voice threads to see if i can load what i presented today. Thanks for the facilitation, 'tis the first time I've attempted to present anything on elluminate, and it was easier than i anticipated, so thanks for the opportunity. |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Alisa, let me know if you have any problems with the voicethreads process. I went ahead and subscribed to the "professional" version (for a fee) that allows us to use all of the "full features" of the service. Gus |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
Hi Gus, it seemed easy enough for me to bumble my way through...havent got used to the sound of my own voice though  However, I have managed to put something up, it comes up with a cck search. Not sure i was at my most articulate, but its a site that I can certainly see has some potential. Thanks for bringing your knowledge of it into cck09, ailsa. |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
I am very happy but tired - still after sleeping one night. It was almost midnight in Finland during the session and I became so activated that I couldn't sleep after it. So I dreamed about your presentations  all the night.My brain works slowly with spoken English and it took all the night to understand what you said Now I am seeking for the recording in order to listen .. after repeating the experience I can say what happened.But great it was, surely. You are gorgious people and I trust you and we respect each other. So the experience empowers us and we get energy. When I get my mind into a better order I'll begin my narrative case study in my blog where is now only the slide from yesterday. It is streched but I don't care, the text can be read. The slide shows my intention and my direction. It is not very far from others who presented I suppose. The habit to use Elluminate blank table and share it, work together, it is fine. It worked in Frances Bell session (teacher disappearing) and it worked now. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Heli - You and Eduardo are amazing! How do you manage to interact in this way when English is not your language. I wish I had both your skills. On another point - and having listened to the recording - I don't think it was about the teacher disappearing - more that there were several teachers in the room. I suppose the next, and difficult, step would be to decide how to locate teaching partners in a network, where there would be mutual and reciprocal teaching and learning of benefit to each of the teachers. Jenny |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Jenny, interesting question: how to locate teaching partners ... Does 'peer leadership' help us here? I have previously used 'moderated peer learning' but this takes us quite a bit further, and also, "Locating teaching partners in a network" looks like the key to net-pedagogy (aka "vle's": virtual learning ecologies) to me. Foooood for thought. Thanks. Nice to see you back visiting (or temporarily resident?) in the forums. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
| I agree it was a great experience, the atmosphere created by the facilitators managed to encourage a lot of participation. I really liked all of the presentations and was particularly inspired by Heli´s psychological approach and her "find your own voice" motto. I felt very self-conscious about my microphone issues though, but that´s another lesson from connectivism for me: I wasn´t that familiar with the very simple concept of a microphone connection and didn´t know that with a USB microphone I would have done better. Becoming more familiar with all kinds of hardware and software is a requirement in new learning enviroments, an invisible requirement until it becomes an obstacle for communication. So I´d better get to know my computer like the palm of my hand (can you say this in English?) |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
(Grrr!! just lost a long post - happens to me occasionally in Moodle ) Thanks for all who participated and presented - I thought it was a really good session. What worked for me?
I think that our model could be rolled out in two ways: 1. self-organised study groups working together to discuss, refine and bring their ideas back to the wider course 2."moving on connectivism" workshops where a mix of participants and GS/SD have workshop + plenary format to tease out themes/issues Well that's my twopennorth - what do you think? |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi, By all accounts, it sounds like the event was a rousing success. I wanted to take it in, but I was at work. I am looking forward to playing back the recording, though I am sure it would have been much more stimulating to attend synchronously. I will have to make do. C'est la vie. Cheers and congrats! /RJ |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Great ideas Frances, 1. Self-organised study groups - Following CCK08, we have formed the Connectivism Ning Community Network and many of the CCK08 participants have joined it. Every one in CCK09 are invited to join. There is also a Connectivism wiki that participants could consider. 2. "Moving on Connectivism" workshop could be organised after CCK09, using various social media. We could use the Connectivism Ning Community Network to organise such workshops, with Elluminate run on a need or regular basis. 3. We have got distributed networks on Facebook, Twitters (tagged under #CCK09), CCK09 Ning, Diigo #CCK09, Google Research Group #CCK09, Delicious/tag/cck09, Friend Feed, various wiks - wikispaces on PLE/N, Wordpress (tagged under #CCK09) for us to consider.... Would a list of the links help? Would you mind to include your links in subsequent threads? That's my 10 cents worth What do you think? |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
One of the challenges in holding synchronous event such as Elluminate is that people/participants all over the world are living with different time zones. So, it would be: 4 pm in Winnipeg of Canada 10 pm in London of UK 9 am in Sydney of Australia the next day etc. If the event is organised at a time where people have to attend a mid-night session, then those people would surely have to miss out from the event. On a few occasions, I have attended Elluminate sessions held at 1:00 am or 2:00 am (not with CCK08/09) and one at 5:00 am with CCK08. It was very difficult to focus, and I lost sleep on that night. Have you experienced similar problems? What would be the feasible solutions to overcome such time zone problem? (a) Would the holding of (same or similar) events with 2 time slots help? This would allow people from the same regional area to attend. (b) Or would the organising of event be based on the needs of people in certain regional areas? Would networks be "grouped" on such basis to allow online sessions be run? Would that also explain why some events have huge crowds attending, whilst others haven't? What do you think? |
 | Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
It was a great session and thanks to all of you for organizing. I think timezones will always be a problem and don't know the solution. Personally I have no problems with any time if I am interested enough to attend and I have the flexibility in my work and personal life to do so. Try to get me to something boring and mandatory at 4 in the morning though and I might object! Grouping people regionally could help, but seperates you from people at the same time. For example - arbitrarily picking north america as the area - who in that session was not in North America? Who would I have not have had the experience from if I was in that group and you were not.... Even within an area there can be difficulties - something that starts at 7 pm in BC is 11:30 pm my time! Andrea |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Frances, great idea. I'll come back to you on more detailed response. Its a bit like speed-dating (which I havent tried), but only far better, I would imagine. A new interactive meme? (the meeting of minds, not the connecting of computers?) |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
I take Sui Fai John's points about the Ning and the time zone issue but there is something about the Speed presentation aspect that is important and was in the post I lost. Synchronous sessions enable better performativity and interactivity IMHO. With some great colleagues, I have run 'Slam' (based on poetry slams) workshops for the last few years (and have used something similar for extended Induction activity). Workshops are based on a topic or theme, introduced by short presentation(s). Participants then work in groups to produce a brief performance piece (that we can video), then watch each other's and vote. Here they are: http://web2slam.wetpaint.com/ http://digdivslam.wetpaint.com I think it might be possible to do a version of this that combined synchronous and asynchronous. So I am thinking that groups could work together synchronously to produce their Slam, publish it by a certain date when forum discussion could explore it, followed by some sort of plenary event that drew together common threads. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Here is the recording of Responses to Connectivism Elluminate Session. Frances, I enjoyed your workshop postings and the Youtube videos. Participants would enjoy more with interactive activities, presentation, discussion and further interaction, agreed. Great idea to do a version of that combining synchronous and asychronous sessions. Those who couldn't attend the synchronous session (Elluminate) could also be involved in such network activities. Digital story telling (using voice thread) could be a useful mean to encourage collaboration amongst network members, but it requires a lot of good will, mutual sharing, time and efforts in making up the story. The voice thread that Ailsa and Gus mentioned could be a very effective way of sharing different views of participants based on a video or picture. What is required are some common themes that are of interests to our groups or networks. Any suggestion? Could we also use Goggle Wave to initiate a simple joint network project? This may be a project/discussion lasting for 2 to 3 days sharing on Goggle Wave. I think most of us might be excited in how we could apply Goggle Wave in network or education projects. What do you think? |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Someone asked me to put my Elluminate presentation in Voicethread and I did it some minutes ago but I am not sure if it is still private or not. It was my very first visit to Voicethread and it was really easy and nice but I'm not feeling myself sure ... Anyway I tried to share the presentation with CCK09 group. How to connect my picture to the dark side-picture? I thonk it remainde separated from it - can it be connected? All my attention went to technological questions and I forget my thoughts about the content, it is either or.. but tomorrow I 'll be wiser I hope and more selfconfident |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Heli, twas I who asked you. Thanks, I'll take a look and respond. I dont know about links across pictures, but I think the way it is so far, they are all discrete. But that doesn't mean links wont emerge! |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Roy and CCK09 group in Voicethread Now I got the address http://voicethread.com/share/769312/ my voice sounds awful and unsure and I am afraid of speaking .. It is a new skill to learn to enjoy recordings. But I did this and better to be proud of it! I will write more to my blog when I have more to say .. and have time for wrtiting. |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
Hi Frances - sorry to be so late in entering into this discussion and please take my comments with a pinch of salt - since I didn't make your Elluminate session (although I have listened to the recording) and so can not have your insider perspective. You have written: Synchronous sessions enable better performativity and interactivity IMHO. I'm not sure about this. I think they enable a different kind of interactivity - but not necessarily better. It depends on the criteria. Jenny |
| Re: Comments and reflection on Elluminate Session on 25 Nov 09 |
|
I think I agree with you Jenny. It's the mix of synchronous and asynchronous that is rich I think. In that session, we were trying to create a different experience than the usual Elluminate sessions have been and I think we succeeded. What I have been thinking about in these two posts is how we might do something different again, to promote creativity and interaction. |