[cbokhove]

I think there should be less choice. Many tasks, further then ‘if you do 1 thing’, has too many options: “this is about this”. Interesting. “This about that”. Interesting. But if everything’s interesting it can be hard too choose. In addition, having all the participants being distributed over many possible topics imo means less engagement on one topic. Because everyone could be doing something slightly different. And then there are 3 ways to do this: mail, forum and twitter (and diigo, and..). I think there ought to be a way to integrate all the media, as now all the media don’t build up enough momentum. And then we’ve got a spiral downward, because that demotivates me a bit, so I post less so etc etc

[cbokhove]

Exactly. Me too. Although we only provide anecdotal evidence of course 🙂

[cbokhove]

As mentioned on twitter I think these are much better than the other ones, in my opinion, but as stated in a separate post, I’m struggling with the actual point of these questionnaires. Although this one’s quite good it would really have to be validated. And what is the purpose? Do learners find it useful? Do they change their actions?

But even then, you could get things like ‘ A digital native scale’  (see for example http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131513000511). Questions based on an informal, un-proven and rather non evidence-based concept but because ‘ alpha is high’  etc etc Well, you get the point.

[cbokhove]

I agree with you Duncan. It actually is the main reason why I wanted to point out the similarities between TM’s and, for example iPads. But where behaviourism is seen as ‘bad’ and outdated, history repeats itself with an uncritical adoption of (one) machine(s) and commercialization.

[cbokhove]

OK, I formulated that very badly. I mean ‘tool’ in the Vygotskyan sense. We develop ‘relationships’ with the tools in the world we utilize. My main point is that, in my opinion,  it’s not ‘something completely different’ but a case of learning how to utilize all these different kinds of tools. I’m also thinking about how you motivate people; often suggesting that some people are ‘up there’ and up-to-date because they adopt TEL works negatively. I particularly don’t like the qualification ‘a way of life’ if by that you mean a conscious choice to use technology in your learning. If you mean this as ‘society has evolved and more and more people are using technology’, yes then I do agree.

[cbokhove]

Yes. Mixed feelings. As an app OK but very very instructional, even with some interactive Multiple Choice questions.

[cbokhove]

Sounds good. I did see some plugins for Apps providing LMS functionality. Google themselves also provide http://code.google.com/p/course-builder/

[cbokhove]

I think that coining TEL as ‘something completely different’ is the problem. When we see TEL as ‘a tool’ then it’s much less threatening.

[cbokhove]

I wonder why we keep on insisting on using the term MOOCs when actually they are ‘just’ online courses provided in a slightly different VLE than usual. When I think about providers like Canvas, coursera, EdX most MOOCs aren’t all too original in their activities. Even more connectivistic MOOCs pale in comparison to what has been possible in Moodle for many years. We just didn’t know how to exploit these features. To me, that is the main issues. We should not see MOOCs as something new but as a second try at features that have been around for quite a while. To analyze this well, we have to look at present VLE’s and explore why they aren’t used to their potential. So, in short:

1. I would see a MOOC as a VLE 2.0 but not really that different.
2. The same challenges as with VLE’s so let’s build on research that’s already been done in that field and try to prevent making the same ‘mistakes’.3. It’s not in the tool, it’s in the users so CPD for teachers and students is needed.

My 50 cents 🙂

[cbokhove]

 

I think that any institution facilitating vendor lockin by buying one type of hardware device that can only run one type of operating system (mind you, I felt the same about Microsoft but then again that was ‘only’ software) isn’t doing education a service. It creates institutions that are overly dependent on specific products, something that has been rightly criticized quite a lot when it comes to Windows or, for example, Blackboard. Especially the fixation on ‘apps’ is frustrating as there are viable alternatives for both supplier like Google, Apple and designers like html5 (yes, I know some people will come up with speed as an issue, but for 99% of applications this is no problem). Why not more open-ness. Mind you, I’m not picking out Apple specifically but think more thought should be given towards these ethical issues. Even journals and research seem to run away with the idea that using type-specific hardware and software is a good idea, without even bothering to extrapolate what this means for education in general. It also touches social inclusion issues. Another issue would be the idea that just giving tools to someone will make ‘the learning happen’. This is not true.

[Author]

Posts