WHAT WAS THE BEST THING ABOUT THIS COURSE?
The best thing for me was to see how well a mixed-modality
course can work on P2PU -- by combining formal education
aspects, some degree of co-location, distance education,
and informal learning. The result was a course with great
sustained participation, good networking for the future as well.
But I think this ties for "bestness" with the selection of
readings, which was excellent. Another proof of concept:
"survey courses" are likely to be a good use of time for
grad-student types in other fields.
DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING THAT WILL HELP YOU IN YOUR JOB OR STUDIES?
Already has helped: I cited Scardamalia in the final set
of revisions for my "paragogy" paper. Furthermore, 1-1
discussions with Jennifer adjacent to this course gave me
a lot of ideas about participation, and helped me find
another cool reference, "Authority is Relational" by
Charles Bingham. Much appreciated. I'm also
incorporating the ideas about "multi-stars" into a paper.
APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND ON THE COURSE EACH WEEK?
I guess it was approximately equal in-class and
out-of-class, so 2-3 hours per week on average?
HOW SHOULD WE IMPROVE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURSE IN THE FUTURE?
It is often impossible for me to distinguish between
course-specific issues and platform issues. I've
offered to Monica to have a paragogical post mortem
discussion with her and any others who want to participate
in that. A sketch of thoughts along these lines from me:
1. Changing context as a decentered center.
Course-wide and site-wide tags would help people have
important "meta-discussions" while allowing others to
filter them away if desired.
2. Meta-learning as a font of knowledge.
Since this is a course on CSCL, and we're also doing CSCL
in the course, we're in a very good position to do
meta-learning. I think more of an "applied" track would
have been nice to add in addition to the "survey" track (I
would have certainly freed up more time for this!).
3. Peers provide feedback that wouldn’t be there otherwise.
I found my 1-1 conversations with Jennifer to be of equal
interest and importance to the conversations in the
course. We were talking about challenging emotional
aspects of participation in this course and P2PU more
generally. I think this sort of "peer support" dimension
is great, not sure how to improve it (!), but we certainly
did come up with some ideas about how to improve emotional
aspects of peer learning in this kind of space.
Ultimately I am not happy about the way feedback and ideas
are currently handled at P2PU in the large: it doesn't yet
seem to be peer-governed, and I find that very
disappointing. The course has been better in this regard.
4. Learning is distributed and nonlinear.
Like Stian, I've had a number of overlapping projects
(including the "Shaping P2PU" course I've been trying to
organize), and, as in item 1, I think more explicit
technological support for distributed and non-linear
thinking would be good.
5. Realize the dream if you can, then wake up
The course was great as a survey course. This aspect
might be improved if the citation management system had
been set up and was working better from the start. (Stian
and I talked briefly about citation management 1-1...)
However, as I mentioned above, I think more work with
applications is the logical "next step".
HOW COULD THE DIFFERENT TOOLS AND COMMUNICATION CHANNELS WORK BETTER?
See above: tags, citation management issues, "political"
issues around P2PU. It also would have been nice to be
able to reply to system emails directly from my email
client instead of having to use the website.
I personally got nothing from the "followers", and I
question that mode of (non-)engagement. Did *they* get
anything out of the course (I wonder)? I assume some of
them are cool people, but if this aspect of the system is
going to be "useful", it needs some re-thinking.