My experiences during rhizo14

I’ve been away one week and it is a long time. I’ve missed the last week of rhizo. I watched the last recording and I could see many happy participants there. To me this experience is like many other MOOCs which have been working well. I was not very active, I wrote eight posts and some comments, got three new FB friends and about ten new Twitter connections. I’ll follow some blogs after the course.

These were  my thoughts before the beginning of rhizo:  “How to participate in this international world? I’ve some circles of friends here and there and – after deciding not to participate in any course – I have noticed that many of my friends began the course “Rhizomatic Learning” run by Dave Cormier. I am a member of the FB group “Rhizo14” already and read enthusiastic writings by many people which I’ve met in previous courses. So, what to do? Perhaps I must get acquainted with the course programme and participate those weeks which are immersive enough. The real reason for participation are the people, anyway, I trust their capacity to interact with the co-learners. I follow people, not topics. It is a waste of time to ponder about my aims or interests, I’ll find them only by participating.”

I was interested in the question what makes online communities work. My post  ‘sense of virtual community’ is one of my favourite. So what can I tell about rhizo?  I met the old friends (Frances, Jenny, Jaap, Matthias)  and some new. I don’t mention their names, because I don’t remember everyone just now.  I was interested in some names which I lost soon. Why some connections continue and others not?  Time available is one factor, but there are differences in sensitiveness and openness. The facilitator’s behavior can influence more than other participants. I had seen Dave earlier in many situations and I admire how authentic he is in front of the camera. He is capable of interacting and listening to others. I could see this happening in the last hangout, he kept in the background and gave the space to others. Earlier on the course there was one silly comment from Dave to an experienced participant and I was very disappointed. Dave apologised openly so many times that I’ve had  to forgive him for that event. We are all human beings and make mistakes (a good model if I want to see it as such).

Rhizo is an experiment about totally personal curricula with a power shift to the participants. There must be many curricula in the course and mine is far from the normal one. I didn’t follow the weekly topics as most participants seemed to do. I did not open my heart to rhizomatic learning, I have no reason to study what those guys have said. So perhaps I am a test for personal learning plan (PLP). I wanted to learn about random learning online, what are the signs about virtual community or network. How to interpret the changing events?

The core concept in developing a course must be interaction. It is easy to build connections with like-minded people. It strengthens and sharpens the mind and the will. I remember Frances’ words about me: wise and strong. In rhizo we lived in the middle of self-made abundance. There is a tendency toward surface communication. Perhaps I should stop my serious pondering and say as Viplav in his blog: Dave is our Elvis. We lived in a Dave Cormier fan club some weeks and it was soo fuun. The event may end, but online learning in MOOCs and conferences continues. Viplav said: “A course is just a plot device to get people together, to communicate, to interact, to take part in this common exercise. And in this common exercise our connection between each other and our connections inside ourselves will be exercised, will be increased, augmented, developed — and we learn.” Show must go on …

Critical peer feedback is best in edcmooc

I was lucky again to get appropriate assessment in edcmooc2. My artefact is connected to a research project about emergent learning. The project began after the first connectivism course in 2008, where two of the researchers and I participated. I have been following the project from the beginning and tried to use its description of learning. I think that it is one of the best ways to grasp the dynamics of emergent learning. I wrote blog posts about the method in August and September using edcmooc1 as my example. I wanted to connect my artefact to this research.

So I did a prezi around the project. The prezi includes a video in which Jenny Mackness (the researcher) demonstrates the method. My own contribution is not valuable. Only the idea or my intention is worth considering. I do not like my prezi myself and I have no intention to use it anywhere else. I just wanted to contribute to the end of edcmooc and did something to do that. I am very glad that my peer reviewers understood me.

The feedback was delightfully critical and told me everything I had in my mind after sending the prezi to the coursera platform for assessment:

In many ways, the artifact consists more of a reflection on education than on the themes of the course.

It would have been good to review the main themes of the course before putting together the submission. It is difficult to know which one were being communicated.

This artefact has ‘learning’ and ‘future education’ written all over it. I would have loved a few more pages of information on this subject.

Perhaps you could have explained the theory before showing the video. At the end you wrote what “Jenny said”. I would have loved to know your opinion.

My impression is that the student may have taken this course to reflect on learning rather than to reflect on how digital culture is changing the world. Would have liked to see more focused response.

Here comes the positive side of the feedback. I enjoyed this part of course.

 I really enjoyed your prezi! The video of Jenny Mackness is interesting. I have to admit it is a bit confusing at first but once you get the idea it actually makes sense. It highlights that humans do not learn in the same.

Very good artefact! Thank you for making me think about this kind of stuff! 🙂
Among three of the assignments I marked, this one is the best one, which highlights the course themes and the key concepts in brief.

I like how you started out with writing down your personal objectives for this course. What you wanted to get out of it. Wish I did that as well.

The creator has made a very strong link between the course contents and the themes. The artefact is also related to education.

Good stuff! Really enjoyed watching your artefact and I’ve learned something new.

I have to thank my peer reviewers and agree with their opinions. Now I want to add something . The media (prezi) is not the best for describing a research. I understood that wikispace is much better and it is the form that the researchers have chosen. So it is better to continue inside that wiki. It is open and there are open webinars too if you become interested in it.

My technological skills are not good and I did not manage to connect any voice to the prezi myself. I tried and there was help available but when the deadline schedules changed three times, I stopped trying. Websites or storify could have been more suitable to my ideas. This is all learning and it is more important than a good product. Edcmooc is a good place to try new things and it is my fault that I didn’t use it more. I have to write another post about what I have learned about my motives and passions.

This post is written in honour of the peer feedback. It was working well again in edcmooc. They gave me 1 if you want to know 🙂 We had pass (1) or fail (0) assessment.

My footprints on the course edcmooc in Febr 2013

I can show the whole picture about my footprints during edcmooc. I have taken distance to this topic in our summer cottage and looking for birds who are gathering to crowds in order to migrate to the South. I gathered lingonberries and noticed that my back does not like the movements. And I have received comments to my previous posts from Jenny Mackness, the researcher in Footprints of emergence wiki. I can answer to her comments here. So, what are my footprints:

tulospienI don’t draw any lines between my points, because they are single footprints. I did not say footprints of learning or emergence in my heading, that dimension is still obscure to me: what am I assessing here?

I am describing my experiences and I have my perspective about what is my ‘full points’. I think that best for me, for my learning is to work in challenging situations and learn new things (content and/or skills). For me this kind of challenge is always positive, it is something I am after in my live 🙂

Summary: the balance between instruction and emergence was optimal to me in edcmooc. I was working on sweet or positive challenging emergent learning during the course. I had space for self-actualisation and creativity. I learned a lot and enjoyed even more 🙂 .

I believe that my description is similar to the experiences of other experienced moocers. But some of them may consider the course as too easy (the assignment was so open that all could be accepted). And in every massive course there are thousands of participants who are whining for more clarity and guidance and who are very discontented with the design. I am so accustomed to this situation that I jump over their comments. It would be interesting to compare the footprints of all different  participants. It would be a messy image I suppose.

I believe that this footprint method works well when a group of students is using it together and comparing their thoughts. I did my footprints alone, a half year after the course, and it was not easy to remember and assess. My personal interest focuses on learning in open online courses  and I’ve got material for this from this model. Space for learning, space for individual creativity is very important for adult participants from my culture. Ownership of learning must be on in the learner’s hands (brain/mind). I do not believe that we can build one learning model for all learning (children/ autistic people). I think that it is necessary to put borders somewhere. I am interested in adults’ learning on open online courses. Emergent learning is perhaps the most interesting part of adult learning, sharing expertise and learning from each other.

Prescribed learning is necessary, I agree of course, when we know the truth or the best knowledge at this moment. I know that there is ‘good English language’ and my style is far from it. I can try self-correction from post to post. For example I do not  use ‘curriculum’ any more about open courses, I say ‘design’. A design has an artistic connection in my mind. I should take a course of English… We use the concept ‘learning plan’ in my country.

Now it is time to take a break again, I feel tired. This post includes some general comments to myself and Jenny. Something is happening in my mind. The activity level of brain/mind is one of the most important factors in learning and in emergence. Where is this in the footprints model? Agency of course, me as an actor?

EDIT later Here is the address to the wikispace so you can see the machine-made beautiful picture. It is easy, I did it and Jenny Mackness helped to put it in the right place. Some day I’ll continue this pondering.

My assessment about edcmooc

I decided to assess one course, E-Learning and Digital Cultures, in which I participated, first with my own words and how I remember the experience. Then I check my posts about the course and add something if important things had fallen out of my memory. The final part consists of building the Footprints of the course according to the research project, but it comes later.

The edcmooc course lasted four-five weeks (Jan Febr 2013) and consisted of the following parts:

Block 1 Utopias and dystopias: week1 Looking to the past, week2 Looking to the Future

Block 2 Being Human: week 3 Reasserting the Human, week 4 Redefining the Human

Week 5. Final Assessment and Peer Gradings, Research about the course.

Edcmooc was one of the Coursera products and used its platform, discussion forums and peer gradings. The resources for every week were short videos, recommendations about articles and lectures and facilitators’ hangout. The four facilitators were working at Edinburgh University, Scotland, and they worked as a team, for instance wrote a blog jointly, participated in Hangouts together.

My free assessment about edcmooc is very positive. The students were excellent, active and supportive. They made a Google group and offered their findings, shared their discoveries all the time. The facilitators were active and relaxed, the atmosphere was full of joy and laughter. The facilitators were interested in us, the participants, and wanted to receive all kind of feedback. The content was easy to follow, the videos were short demos about digital life. I had a feeling that I could step into a new digital world, to participate in an exciting journey. I blogged and commented on others’ blogs, followed the discussion forums when I wanted and followed the extra Google group. I tried Google+ because I got help with trying it. There was a week when we could send images to Flickr, it was extra, perhaps, but very nice. I did not study all of the content but I did not care. I learned a lot, I used Prezi in my Final work first time in my life. I admired other participants’ digital artefacts and published some of them in my blog. I liked a discussion Forum named Age 60+ and blogged about it.

The assessment is very positive. Now I read my posts and check if I forgot something important. I wrote 19 blog posts during the course 27.1.-6.3. The posts included more facts about positive happenings but not anything quite new compared to the previous text. Perhaps the concept ‘digital viking’ is worth mentioning. It is an example of other participants’ ideas which greatly inspired me. From the content I chose the parts dealing with human interaction and I asked the basic question: Have we always, sometimes or never been human? I used the demo videos and lectures in my post.

I did a summary of the results of what I’ve learned during edcmooc (my blog post 4.3.) .

edcassess

I wonder what I could add to this description by using the Footprints with its clusters and factors?

This image is more about my learning outcomes, while Footprint factors help to describe the pedagogy, learning dynamics. I spoke about it in my first summary in this post.

Critical factors from my point of view seemed to be these two: The activity and high digital literacy of other students inspired me. And the facilitators, I trusted their expertise. These factors made my success and maintained my motivation and activity during the course.  What else can I find? This is an exciting journey…

 

Learning outcomes for #edcmooc

The course edcmooc is ending: we have assessed each other and  got the feedback. It is good to ponder the assessment issues, I always do when a course is over. There are numerous ways to assess learning but no simple ways. I deal with following three ways:

1. The facilitators evaluation in their blog and the two hangouts.

I took my heading from Christine Sinclair, her blog post, . I have appreciated the team blog “Teaching E-Learning and Digital Cultures” – it gave a connection to our facilitators thoughts and feelings. I liked to compare their view to my own and usually I agreed with the writers. So happened this time: Christine was pondering how complex are the outcomes, not easy to define. The creativity is fantastic and enjoyable, it has no limits. Only some outcomes can be recognized immediately and it would be fine to check the outcomes after a year.

The team blog also gave facts and quantified information about the happenings during the course. It helped participants to reflect.

2. The peer grading was planned to be rather simple. We had to assess these five components: The artefact

  1. – addresses one or more themes for the course
  2. – suggests that the author understands at least one key concept from the course
  3. – has something to say about digital education.
  4. The choice of media is appropriate for the message.
  5. The artefact stimulates a reaction in you, as its audience, e.g. emotion, thinking, action.

This seems to work when we had only 0-1-2 points to give. The descriptions and arguments were more important than grades and showed how the co-learner had understood the artefact. They are the real feedback.

On this course participants begun to publish their artefacts in different forums and got much feedback in FB group and their blogs’ comments. The assessment was rather public, and it was considered natural. Only the three *official’ evaluators were anonymous.

3. Self assessment goes through the course and the other reflections only mirror it.

Here I try to describe three levels of reflection. I have tried to reflect after many courses, look for instance Oct 2011 “Three years blogging, learning journey” . This time I have a hunch that  I’ve really learned better than ever,  and I want to show it.

I have basic skills and motivations and many meta-skills for learning. It is possible to participate, I don’t frustrate too much about the amount of knowledge and different devices , I know that so it must be. I do not believe that clear rules were a good way to help students, the disorientation must be experienced and a new way must be built up from choice to another. You cannot find yourself by obeying other people and following clear rules. Everyone has feelings of loneliness on massive open courses.

But how could I describe the new and broader  perspective of e-learning and digital cultures. Gardner Campbell had a lecture about real vs fake changes. I have the feeling of real change just now, how wonderful it is to open eyes and understand more deeply  what is going on and see own limits. I have believed that humanity is true and simple goal. No, we have never been human said Steve Fuller. I didn’t know the many possibilities of posthuman and transhuman worlds. I have learned some new content and attitudes, no doubt.

I have learned participation too. This course has many excellent students who built FB group, Twitter chats and wikis. It seems that the idea of MOOC has developed a new generation who really is self directive and uses the technological possibilities. There were models to follow, friends to ask help. For instance Chris at the beginning and Fran Monaghan in the forums, she followed new questions there and answered to many co-learners. The facilitators are not alone, every student can be a facilitator.

This edcmooc was a great experience, the facilitators were excellent models and so were the peers. I learned a lot, time will tell how much. I am not sure anymore what should be the object of assessment: individual student or the course at a whole? Perhaps I should describe the new networked learner?

 

Learning Analytics about PLENK and me

I continue my pondering about learning analytics and use myself as a case in PLENK course. Rita Kop was one of the facilitators and she had a presentation in the first LA conference some days ago. She has blogged about the conference twice.

First I gather things that I consider most interesting in Rita’s and Helene’s slides. The boldings are mine.

  • Many different people as participants – professors and researchers, designers, teachers. Got demographics, 55 and older group are a majority of participants. Spread across the globe.
  • What did they do? Used a variety of tools – high number of blog posts, even higher number of Twitter posts, increases steadily over the ten weeks. Aggregated posts via the tag. Elluminate, Moodle were steady but low throughout. Only 40-60 individuals participated actively on a regular basis and produced blog posts.
  • Had to rethink research methods, the environment much bigger. Complexity. Many issues. For instance, ethical issues in collecting big data. Can’t just use data that people have given for another purpose.
  • Thematic analysis – learning is the central concept. Agency, the I/me ownership of the discussions were sub-concepts.
  • Did qualitative and quantitative methods. Virtual ethnography, focus groups, surveys, data mining. Very crude analysis so far, thematic analysis, learner analytics and visualization, stats on surveys.
  • Found analytics helpful; visualization did clarify things didn’t notice from traditional qualitative methods. But still need those to capture depth. Ethics implications are there. Linking data could be used to enhance learning.

There was discussion after the presentation and it was a little weird to listen to it because I was one of them, the voluntary participants in PLENK. Somebody asked if “facilitator said one thing, had a huge effect?  Did you look at types of post that really got people worked up?and here come the answer:

Rita: The posts that get people going the most are controversial statements. Have to think how to word it to generate participation. Had huge number of participants, once ball is rolling people spark off each other. Twitter interesting in linking blog posts back to discussion forums. Twitter has been an important part in that.

Question: Big challenge, have an arbitrary number of systems – an SNA for Moodle, Flickr, Twitter – how do you merge those? Huge challenge. Rita: Definitely. If you want analytics to work on a multi-platform, have to connect them ..

Rita: Had discussion after the course. Large number participated, but not by producing material. Dropping out? .. want to know why people dropped out. The pattern on the internet of participation? Also, about 54% said they were self-directed learners and didn’t need to communicate. Also a lot of novices who said they needed the time before they would participate and produce things.

Now I continue with my experiences. I am one of those 55+ self-directed learners and I made own summaries after the course. I was glad about the link to this blog (in Rita’s presentation), Google Analytics is in use and sharing it with others is my habit. I also summarized Moodle activity by checking the amount of writings (I could see it only from profiles, it was rough measure).

Ethical questions arose when I blogged about these results. What can I say aloud, I don’t want to assess my co-learners in public. I dared to say that Chris Jobling was our main reflector, Susans (2) were perhaps emotional supporters and Ken had critical questions. It was nice to get comments, some were pleased to my blog post.  I remember that I had other ideas, for instance the place of technological skills (Chris, Susan etc) on forums. I analysed publicly only my participation (only greeted friends and answered to questions of Google map, nothing important).

What is the amount of technical questions and problems, new tools – is it about 80% of all discussions? I was disappointed about the interpretation that PLE means only technological environment of learners. But if this is basic agreement, so it is no wonder that technology rules. Open courses are for nerds, mainly? – In the slides learning, agency and ownership were said to be the themes most in use. Learning + Technology?

I had an idea to follow my connections and learning during the course, but soon I understood that I can report my thinking only partially. I wanted to connect to some people and not to some others. Jenny’s and Matthias’s paper about eResonance interested me, but I could not proceed very much. I blogged something about my experiences, how I felt tired … I have decided 19.11.2010 to change the name of this blog and stop to participate in open courses if they have only general themes (like PLENK). But I continued to analyse learning and still do.

Just now I have many questions from Mohsen Saadatmand waiting. Excellent questions, it takes many days to answer and I am sure that I learn a lot while reflecting my answers. And I wait with great interest more results from Rita and Helene. This was only beginning.

Who was active in the forums?

If you are interested in the individual differences of our activity level in PLENK2010, please read this. I’ll give you a rough estimate on this. I began to look at the participants list: who had logged in during last days and then I took a glimpse of the forum posts behind the name, how many pages they had written. I found that

Chris Jobling  had written on 43 pages ( our main reflector?) and after him two Susan:

Susan O’Grady 35 pages and Susan Grigor 23 pages (emotional leaders?).

Ken Anderson had a lot of critical questions, 20 pages.

Vilimaka Foliaki and Vahid Masrour, both 12 pages.

Linn Gustavsson 11 pages

Eduardo Peirano, Rita Kop, George Siemens and me 10 pages each.

Stephen Downes, Jim Stauffer, Eva Birger, Ken Masters 9 pages each.

Chris Saeger and Patricio Bustamante 8 pages – and so on. There can be mistakes, I do not guarantee anything. I did not check all the 1800 participants…

These are only numbers (quantity). I can say about myself that I participated in Introductions -forum (saying  hi) and in Google Map discussion (General Forum in September) – I don’t feel that I said anything in the Forums – I was astonished about the number of pages.

No sense in this, just looking – and tell this to you if anyone is interested and wants to analyze further?

My learning in PLENK?

This is the last day of PLENK2010 (actually nothing ends and often the best discussions happen after the course) – but anyway, I have a need to integrate or evaluate something. I found this in our program, what to do in just now:

Artifact of your Learning

Details: Your final presentation can be handled in a variety of formats: podcast, slidecast, Articulate presentation, video recording, Second Life presentation, or, if your feeling creative, an approach of your choosing. The presentation could answer any of the following: “What role can PLE/N’s play in my teaching? Or my personal learning? How has this course influenced your view of the role of networked technologies and learning networks? What types of questions are still outstanding?”

I am not creative, I am the same boring blogger as always. And I am waiting for a call from my husband, he perhaps can return home today after a month in a hospital 🙂 So I cannot completely focus on PLENK. But I have some ideas.

I am not a typical course student and I do not wait anything from the facilitators. It is enough that they offer the structure and the platform (Moodle). I am ready to study “alone” and find my way. All depends on the time I can and want to use for finding new friends, trying new tools, checking materials etc. I see no difference between students and facilitators, we have many 55+ students who have much to give to others ( I say this aloud after filling Sui Fai John’s questionnaire – he is so correct and polite. Asian culture versus Finnish independence, you know).

Why to blog and how to blog are my questions today – and the answer is connected to differences in expertise. From my point of few, I am tired to read writings about psychological phenomena without knowing basics. I am tired of listening advices to teachers given by people who never have taught anything. I don’t want to hear that all institutions are stupid and bad and only free individuals know how to live. And I understand that when I speak about technology, it sounds ridiculous in the ears of engineers – I always hesitate which concepts are suitable (tools devices technologies?)

So how to make sense in discussions? Jenny and Matthias pondered this question just when PLENK began: what is the eResonance and how it arouses in the very beginning. How can I find the people with whom I could collaborate and create? Have I learned anything about this? I have to smile (to myself) when I find an interesting blog after three years participation (Howard Johnson for instance, found but not read his blog, not yet). I will continue this project, I have many names and blogs to explore during next weeks. I want to follow Rita Kop, for instance, in the future.

I have enjoyed these open courses, about which I have blogged here, but I think I know the connectivism movement well enough. It has given a certain frame of the change happening in web world but – in my mind – it grasps only one side of these changes. So I am not enthusiastic anymore – I should change to heading of this blog or stop blogging.

This has been an interesting journey and it will continue everywhere I move. I promise to write comments to your blogs next week, leave them open please.

My phone is silent still, I am waiting for the call from hospital. I have time to publish this…

About assessment – my point of view

Still waiting for wisdom and seeking for answers by writing here. I was close to finding something in July 7th, when the former course CritLit was ending. I wrote about ethics in open networking (hacker ethic was the original concept, but if it has turned too negative I don’t use it). People work with passion and commitment, collaborate and have wonderful results and findings. It is a long story and I have experienced it without being a nerd.

We want to evaluate in PLENK2010 participants’ learning but we do not know what learning is.

Open source movement had programming as their expertise and they knew it. They did not say that they connect what ever in the world. How about us? I have a hunch that connectivism can be a meaningful theory of learning for amateurs who use computers and have no human science or expertise behind. When an old and experienced person like me begins to study connectivism it means re-inventing everything I already know. This is my feeling.

I have worked so many decades with evaluation and assessment, in theory and practice, that I do not need links to simple www-pages, which define these concepts. This only shows me the nature of – how could I say – web science? The quality of knowledge is … disappearing and what-ever-activity in web is spreading. When you have your speech in TED talk your idea is worth spreading? Now I have gone too far from my topic, so back to basics.

What could be for me the good, appropriate participation in this situation? Some days ago I said: Commenting has become a normal habit to me and networking, I have global awareness (Fisher rubric) and I write professional blogs. I can define these external factors. But: Is this only sport with new tools, instrumental learning? Or is this really new quality of learning? (Roger Säljö)

What can be assessed and what matters? A nice coincidence is that Sternberg, who was given us an example about the borders of intelligence tests – the same man has defined love. I had a short video about his three qualities of love in my courses of development psychology (available only in Finnish). There are possibilities to describe the important changes in consciousness: I wrote many posts about it last summer. There are levels, models, research about expertise.

We can recognize elements that are necessary in collaborative network: Every human being needs to belong to some group within which can feel oneself approved. And we also want to be recognized for what we do. To put it another way, the human being needs the experience of being part of  We with some others the experience of being respected He or She within community and the experience of being a special I with someone else. By doing a good job a person may gain recognition. We are motivated by the force of peer recognition, are we?

I can recognize this support principle implementing in our Moodle Forum 2.week:  Sarah O’Grady Scaffolds and hints for the course. It is possible to help with concrete tools and apps etc and this makes sense. The ability to receive depends on personal history, it is obvious, but the purpose is fine.

What I want to say here that same principle is not impossible in other areas. Many of us have lived in that country, it is not an unknown continent anymore 🙂 I hope I can say this all more clearly during next week.

Assessment can support learning and development

I continue my studies on Evaluation in PLENK2010. I liked the JISC pages about assessment. Every educational institution should present their assessment principles in this way. I could recognize  many perceptions I did while working as an online teacher. Assessment can be used to support learning rather than just test and certify achievement – and testing & certifying can support learning, too.

Technology, every learning platform,  provide ways of enabling students to monitor their own work. The technology can be designed for this purpose. I always used simple questionnaires about basic knowledge and then gave openly the results so my students could reflect and evaluate them from their point of view. Voting systems, online discussion forums, wikis and blogs allow practitioners to monitor levels of understanding.

When students are independent lifelong learners, they can become better at judging their own work.

If you really want to improve learning, get students to give one another feedback. Giving feedback is cognitively more demanding than receiving feedback. That way, you can accelerate learning.

I agree with that and always used peer-assessment. Students did not like it but afterward were content – organizing feedback is one of facilitator’s job. I suppose that better ways to assess and give feedback to each other are factors that make online teaching better than f2f.

This analysis of many researches convinced me: Evaluation of Evidence Based Practices in Online Learning – A Meta Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. I had seen that happen in my online courses. Soon I begin to miss those time 🙂 Last autumn I was working as a teacher educator and now totally free. Just now I am interested in assessing (my) open studies.

I haven’t yet listened to Wednesday recording (Helene Fournier) but I will do it. There are some discussion in our Moodle, should I read, I am not sure. JISC pages promised better dialogue and communication – is it there?