The informal networking on the Monday evening was a great way to get to know a few people, in some cases it was adding the face to face element to online discussion or debate.

On the Tuesday i found the Community Showcase to be very valuable, though i'd been present at the online event, everything came to life and peoples projects became so much clearer to me during that session.

I then spent most of my day in the Round Table sessions, both of mine ended up being 1 hour sessions, but again were very valuable.

In SL/MUVE we got a really good idea of what each group was interested in doing as part of a project, the types of outputs they'd like to create, the skilsets they have. It was useful to see where potential partnerships could be made, and in other cases, where more informal links would be of use.

Appropriate Technology was a very interesting session, it was great to be at a table surrounded with people who had similiar views on the fact that we shouldn't be running out and using Second Life, or whatever the latest technology is, just because its there, but rather it needs to be appropriate to the learning which is taking place. Again some very useful discussions and ideas of where people are came out of this round table. 

I felt the round-up at the end of the day by Rhona was a nice way to end what had been a busy but useful and productive day. I quite liked the postcard idea, a slight spin on the PostSecret concept.

Well worthwhile. 

There is even a VoiceThread album which answers the question What's a VoiceThread anyway? 

There is a very good review and article on this by CogDogBlog. 

This looks like a potentially interesting tool, the end creation is very similiar to Digital Storytelling, though the benefit of something like this is the shared aspect. Whereas a Digital story tends to be a personal tale from one individual, this is allowing for many people to leave audio or text-based comments on these photos in an album.

Its possible for the photos to be related to tell a single story, or to be completely unrelated, and simply have a narrative per photo.

It certainly sounds interesting, and has potential for use in the area of e-portfolio's, digital storytelling, and reflection.

Perhaps another tool to add to the set, its in beta right now, we'll see where it goes. 

Intrigued by what he might have to say on Communities of Practice, i've taken a look at two of his recent presentations Architectures for conversation (PDF Version) and The Rise of Letting Go. Both are quite interesting, and very similiar if not the same in parts. 

There are a lot of messages i've come across before, some are quite interesting even simply as re-inforcement. There is a lot about how the web has changed, how things are about connections, and social elements, the Architectures for conversation article talks quite a bit about "Communities of Practice" and where they fit.

Hinton quotes Wenger:

Its that shared interest, and concern, that makes it a community, rather than loosley connected people.

The practice bit comes from being practitioners, who share their experiences, stories, and so forth.

"Communities of Practice are about Learning, Making and Improving."  - I'd agree with that.

Austin went to Andrew Hinton's presentation, he seemed to think the message was that communities of interest are distinct from communities of practice, and while he agrees this may be technically true, he says that "Communities of practice are engulfed by communities of interest.

Communities of interest, shared culture, is a more powerful framework for participation than communities coalesced around a practice. The former shares world-view while the latter only shares world-do."

To me a community of practice is a mixture of a "community of interest" and practice, a group which not only has a shared practice, but also a shared interest in topics.
We here in the Emerge community do share practices as we are working in similiar fields, but there are topics that some or none of us are practicing, but we still have a shared interest in. 

Perhaps a Community of Practice is really a shared specialism, something we are interested in, and/or practice. As a community i think there is an element of our own shared language and culture, arising from our shared interests and discussions.

However, even if we have shared interests and practices unless there is a Participatory Culture a community falls down. (Here in Emerge we seem to have a bubbling participatory culture). Everybody in the community is important, we don't have to contribute, but its easy to engage with the community if we want.

I also like and agree with his quote that accompanies this slide "Software can't make a non-participatory community into one".
We can use software to facilitate the participatory nature of a community, but tools alone won't do the job, again its all about people, those connections which make that community.

But my favourite slide from Hinton's presentation would have to be this one:

The same tool can be used for many different purposes, people do not have to use the same tool at all, but if they do, they can use it their way very effectively. We shouldn't impose on people what they us and how they use i, but make them aware of its existance and then let them experiment and find the use thats right for them.

li'm very much looking forward to talking with people who are using Second Life in education in a variety of ways, tohear more about their experiences, and uses.

I came across an interesting post on the NMC Second life blog which links to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flkgNn50k1 (Sorry i can't get it to embed)

What i find interesting about this video, is that this is very much what using Second Life feels like to me, and it would be rather absurd for us to be doing this in "Real Life".

I was looking at another post also, where a graduation ceremony was beamed live into Second Life, and people could sit down on a bench and watch it. I guess the advantage of it being in second life could be that those sitting there could talk to eachother as they watched it, but again, the same thing could be done with streaming video and some other tools. I guess then that Second Life could simply be another option, the choice for those who prefer to interact in that type of three dimensional virtual world.

I know its been discussed before, but i do find it quite intriguing how Second Life is a virtual space, a creative space where the laws of physics do not necessarily apply (i've jumped from building roof's and fallen out of the sky many metres high, many times without a scrape), and yet peoples creations seem to stick to many of the constraints of the real world. Why does a building need a roof in second life? We can fly can't we, wouldn't it be easier to get in the roof? Do we need walls?

What is gained from sitting down (as your avatar) in a chair surrounded by other people, typing having a conversation, v.s using msn or other chat tools? Or is it simply that its a different experience, and that some people prefer this way, and others will prefer a different way?

This article asks and answers "Why give a powerpoint presentation in Second Life?", indeed i'd personally prefer to interact through a tool such as elluminate, but i guess we all have our preferences.

I did find that this article, had some interesting examples of things that Second Life has been used for, that could have benefit. Though i did find the conclusion a little disturbing when the author mentioned that they had gotten to know their Second Life neighbours better than their Real life neighbours.

I'm still unsure what to think, every time i come out of Second Life i feel that i'm not grasping something. Yet i read about so many people using Second Life, there must be something in it.

I hope with time i will come to understand Second Life better. 

My personal view is that a Personal Learning Environment should be whichever environment a person feels comfortable learning within. Whether it use technology or not, whether it be a blog, a wiki, MySpace or Facebook, or anything else for that matter, what suits the learner should be the environment they use.

I'm not convinced that universities need to provide a "personal learning environment"/platform as such, and from many of the descriptions i've come across, a PLE seems to be just like a VLE (Virtual Learning Environment), with the only distinguishing factor that the PLE has more Web2.0 and social elements to it. Both useful features, but if its still  being used as a place to provide content, then isn't it really just a VLE under another guise?

I see a place in education for a VLE, perhaps not one that looks quite the way it does now, i'm all for VLE's changing, but i still see the use of an environment where people can interact with their course and classmates and tutor, and where the tutor can also provide information. (If i'm paying thousands of pounds to go to university i'd hope i'm being provided with content.) But also a place for Personal Learning Environments, environments that are personal to the learners, are of the learners choosing and making, where they go for their personal preferences, for their individual learning experiences.

Theres nothing wrong with people using a number of different environments and tools, most of us probably do, even if we are not "officially" studying.

In fact interacting with tools and applications in the way you probably will do when you leave university is a positive in my mind. Being adaptable in this changing world.

This was my comment, originally posted here:

This certainly does sound like an interesting educational model. I would agree that some structure is important, so that people do not feel lost when there are so many options open to them, that can be a rather daunting situation. Yet at the same time, too much structure stifles creativity and natural communication and community building.

The hard part i would think is to get that mix right, even following the computer game model above, to ensure that any instructors or those involved in creating the initial structure let go when students no longer need as much support.

Seems to parallel the parent - child relationship, at some stage needing to let them go out on their own, always supporting them, but perhaps not directing them as much as you did when they were younger.

I was reading http://cogdogblog.com/2007/06/25/webness/ today, "What is ordinary today was really not even thinkable maybe 8 years ago." he says, and that is often quite true.

Back in the early nineties when the world wide web was really beginning to come into its own, Yahoo! was a big player, i remember signing up for my first e-mail address (one i actually still have), people were using discussion groups, and a few people were getting information, but the web was in its infancy and you couldn't get the variety you find now.

I remember having to get an "Internet Drivers License" to use the internet at school, i doubt such practices are in place at schools now. (Though theres an argument that something should be in place to make people aware of what happens to information put on the web - e.g that putting information into MySpace could be making it public.) 

So if today the web is being used by people in all walks of life, for all sorts of different purposes, - its not just for geeks -, people are connecting to others throughout the world, where will the web and technology be in another 10years?

I saw this article in the Guardian last week: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2107228,00.html, about how the 2D barcode is almost upon us, where people will be able to read the barcodes with their phones simply by taking a photo of it. This barcode will take you straight to the website to find out more.

So how could we use this in education? Assuming that you had the buy-in from students (that possibly being difficult when it comes to spending more of their money to access things for education...), could using mobile devices and these barcodes turn paper into an electronic experience?

Simply using a mobile phone, and some barcodes on the handouts and materials, (a similiar concept to the old laserdisc barcodes), could make a class more interactive?

Perhaps barcodes on educational posters, find out more information by scanning here..., faster access than just providing a web address. 

Are barcodes the future?

"Does the personalisation of learning make you unhappy?", I guess that would actually depend on the individual. While general conclusions can perhaps be concluded from differing studies, in the end what actually makes a person happy can be quite different to each individual.

Perhaps what makes someone happy is achieving at a certain level, being better than other people, therefore subscribing to completely individualistic views and practices, anybody that fits into this situation could be quite happy.

The downside of course is that there are people who will not be happy because other people do not want to interact, to share, to also consider their views and interact in a way that would be benneficial for both.

Need personalisation of learning, individualism, be all or nothing?, surely we can empower other people, be mindful of other peoples thoughts, and learning styles, while being mindful of our own.

While making learning personal can be very important, - ensuring you can learn, because you are focussing on the things, and the ways and styles that suit you -, there is also great importance in group learning, in interacting with other people, every conversation can be a learning point, therefore other people are very important, and to not care about them, would ultimately isolate yourself and be detrimental to your overal learning.

To "balance the need for empowering individuals with need for caring about the well being of others within a learning context", learners would need to be made aware of the importance of self, and realising what is important for them to reach their own personal goals, on an individual level. Yet, at the same time, they need to be made aware of the advantages of learning from others, and that to get information you as an individual needs from someone, you need to give in return. So perhaps you approach something from one way and it suits you, you then need to be willing to participate in something in a different way that suits other people too.

Also, always being mindful in whichever way you are approaching something, that every person has their own needs and wants, and feelings, and that to offend them would not only cause them harm (for we should care about our fellow human beings), but could also cause your own learning harm too. (Perhaps this last bit is a little selfish, and not necessarily your overal reason for caring about other people, yet for some may also be an useful motivational factor in the beginning...)

In terms of Self-esteem, mentioned by Frances, i can see how self-esteem has a direct impact on individualism and the extremities of ones approach to personalised learning.

Where personalised learning can be taken as looking out for yourself, only yourself and no-one else, and with certain levels of self-esteem a person may be quite comfortable with that. (Though i think feelings and self-esteem can get a little confused, because some things are more about how you feel about something than your overall self-esteem level.)

Personalised learning can also be taken as ensuring that you do get opportunities to learn in the way that is comfortable to you, but that doesn't stop you from working together with others, so that the learning suits all of you.

Someone with low self-esteem for example, may find that thinking about themselves is quite difficult,  in terms of what is best for them, because they may not feel confident enough or happy enough in themselves to believe that they are important enough for their views to be counted.

Just as its possible for someone with high self-esteem to think they are so important that others views need not be important.

I think personalised learning is very important,  and that the way in which we approach it will effect everyones happiness.

There are several key elements that we believe in, two very important ones are, that the community is community owned and driven, and that things are social.

Our model subscribes to Etienne Wenger's model of "Cultivating communities of Practice", what i found quite ironic was that we didn't actually see the model till later on, and yet it was everything we were already doing. 

Today i've seen an interesting video about defining a online learning community,  (thanks to  Christina Costa), i found this also subscribed to my beliefs about a "learning community".

Two other interesting articles i've come across today are from "The Common Craft blog", using an analogy that a community is like a party, and i found that what was said was very true!

http://commoncraft.com/party

 and

http://www.commoncraft.com/online-community-planning-getting-party-started