Nicholas Bowskill

Bill, what struck me most was when you said that this is unpredictable. I think that's the nub of the thing in some ways. Although the seminar provides a framework and a broad topic the start and finishing point is completely open. This is not one of those courses or activities where the outcomes are already known by someone and its the job of the learners to guess what's in the tutor's mind. It's much more of a social enquiry.

If it was to continue and develop it *could* allow us to shape the thing further by structuring the environment to address our interests and as a response to the needs of the group etc.

I dare say the shell of the thing with an initial forum plus/minus some resources could be reproduced automatically. And it wouldn't make a lot of difference to the rest of what could happen. However, that would really be a fairly trivial thing and maybe the enrollment stuff could be automated too.

Even so the real deal is the openness - in disposition, in the process and in the dialogue etc. It's that open start and end that really marks out these seminars for me and the content is our participation which is also open in its nature. This is rather than having people 'do this and then do that' and do it 'until you are able to understand the other' which is sometimes useful but often very dull.

When we think about OER and openness I think these seminars show the depth of the concept that could be brought into play when compared with materials production being made for free and that kind of thing.   

Bill, one other point. I was perhaps being in self-centred mode in my last comment. I should have asked how would YOU evaluate the session? What has happened to confirm or change your initial view of automation? What is your view of running a seminar on it? And slightly tongue-in-cheek perhaps, could you have automated this seminar with hindsight? If so what and how? ;-)

Nick

Hi Bill,

First of all thanks for doing this. I may have made some grumpy remarks but I actually found the session useful because it made me think about why, what and how stuff in general. I couldn't really see much I'd want to automate but even so I probably didn't try hard enough. In getting me to think about this I did however ask myself why not automate different things. That prompted some internal questioning and dialogue so it was a productive process.

Certainly top marks for hosting this and for your effort and resources. If I thought about the discussion of OER and course design patterns etc. maybe there might be some scope for being able to run through some menus to put together design options as an aid to thinking through the issues.

Either way, it was interesting and different. Thanks again and good luck with your work.

Nick, Glasgow

I would be very sad if my children were encouraged to live on a computer. They've gone on a school trip today exploring the outdoors. No technology allowed for the day. We also just got back from a holiday abroad and I left all gadgets behind. It really can be wonderful to be free of it all. Sometimes the world is too much with us.

In this regard, I love the work of Charles Crook who talks about the use of computers in the classroom as a vehicle for learning in a way that upholds the joys of being with other people. It should be a way of learning with and about other people.

I often think we've learned how to use technology to communicate at a distance. We need to use it to learn to understand those around us too. Maybe once a week might restore some much-needed perspective. ;-)

Nick,

Glasgow

Hi Chris,

I really do agree. The worst phrase I keep hearing is 'how can we use this technology for learning?' It drives me bananas because it is a thought-process driven by technology rather than learning. Like you I would say what constitutes a good design and what are the theories we might draw upon to inform our decisions. Then I might consider a role for technology but only if it seems to support the design decision.

The other popular idea is its constructivist so I use it or its a social constructivist technology. No explanations, definitions or anything. Just this declaration that is supposed to take care of everything that follows. I think we can do a lot better than that. 

Cheers,

Nick