Saturday, January 15, 2011

Reviews by Schawn on Week 1 Readings

Schawn did a remarkable job in reviewing the readings for Week 1 of our LAK course. He focused on Ms Elias' article, which in turn provides points that make more sense to my understanding! Check out his blog at:

In return, I've placed a comment on his blog, as stated below:

Thank you, Schawn, for the good review on Week 1 readings.

I would like to point out the 4 points you have summarised in here, especially item number 2 - "During the design of the learning experience how can the data be captured in a non-intrusive way. If you cannot design and develop the capturing this data in a non-intrusive way, how can you design it in a way where the student will participate in providing enough quality data."

It is true that it is not easy to get students to participate in the first place, even though they spend most time on the same tools for personal use. They somehow do not 'trust' the sharing of info through the tools, even if it benefits themselves. With that as a problem, another consequence is in getting 'quality data'. So far, I only manage to get less than 10% of the student number to participate actively and this also subsides in time. It's quite tricky to get good stats out of this kind of action research, without students' cooperation. They believe in 'open' source only for their personal benefit (taking) and they don't really bother or believe in giving back to the community (giving). There's always a lack of give-and-take in this situation. So how to go about it?

Defining goal is important, but then again, the action itself requires a lot of "promotion" and "negotiation with rewards" in order to get others participate and provide quality data. Not easy. If there's any way to sort out these 2 points, before getting reliable and valid results for the other 2 points, it would be wonderful...

- Shazz
Kuala Lumpur

Hope to read more 'sense-making' reviews from participants of LAK11! ;D
- Shazz @ LAK
15 Jan 2011

No comments:

Post a Comment