Week 3 Diigo activity reflection: an experiment in self, peer and teacher assessment of your work

So I have just (mostly) completed this activity following Davids instructions in the Week 3 notes.

I have shared and tagged my chosen blog post via the Diigo NGL group page but you can also view the annotated page here: https://diigo.com/023idg

Here are my thoughts:

  • It took me a while to get Diigo to work for me and do what I wanted to do. This is good. As someone that supports university staff, the more I understand and experience this, the better I will be “as teacher”. So experiencing this activity “as student” has great learning opportunities that will improve my practice, philosophy and approach “as teacher”.
  • I wonder about how much personality type plays in self assessment tasks and whether it has an impact on generous vs less generous assessment of oneself…I think having peers and the teacher involved in the process should balance this out.
  • I do like what Diigo can achieve as a tool in terms of sharing, annotation and sticky notes.
  • On the flip side I worry about how much has already been shared via our NGL tools and how I will possibly keep across it all and still get all my reading and tasks completed. I just keep telling myself that I simply cant read everything that everyone has shared. Diigo actually claims to help people overcome information overload – so its ironic that I am viewing it as a source of information overload!
  • I was unable to conduct a peer assessment as the only other items tagged spta were David’s – and I wasnt sure if they counted.
  • Looking forward to a peer assessing my contribution.



Where are you with Assignment 1?

Where are you with Assignment 1?

Activity: Take a look at the criteria for assignment 1. What’s clear? What’s not? What could be better? How are you progressing? What more do you need to do?

Below is an aggregation of comments I have made on the Google Doc for Assignment 1. If you look at the document they are in context, but I thought I would summarise them here as they also provide an answer to the questions above.

  • I really hope that the criteria can be finalised as soon as possible? Success for me requires planning and I can’t plan without certainty.
  • Is there too much emphasis on the textual? Will this limit expression of learning to text based methods?
  • Whilst I understand the need for us to demonstrate presence and engagement, I worry about “number of” being given emphasis here – shouldn’t it be about the quality of posts rather than the number of posts?
  • I cant speak for others – but I have a reasonably demanding full time job and I can only set aside time for this course in blocks. This means I tend to output large amounts of work over the course of a couple of days. Shouldn’t the philosophy of self paced learning, and ubiquity inform the criteria a little here?


Where have you come from?


Reading: Read the “Threshold concept framework” section of Kligyte (2009). In particular the table and its discussion of networked learning as troublesome, discursive, irreversible, liminality and integrative. What in this resonates with you and the last few weeks? Are you still in a “liminal” space? Is the “distributed world of information” appearing any more coherent and sensible? etc, eventually leading to questions of where you are headed?

Troublesome: I think I am stuck on how I will make this work for me in practice. I don’t find it counter-intuitive or alien – but definitely incoherent in terms of how I can make it work with the time and resources I have available.

Irreversible: No problems here. I love that it is transformative and will be with me in some form – forever!

Integrative: I am struggling with this one – only in the sense that I have always tried to keep personal and professional reasonably separate. I think that despite NGL – there are still good reasons for this and this is one where I am not comfortable with the blurring.

Discursive: I am personally quite interested in the area of “new literacies”, “media literacies” and “digital literacies” – there are many names for this. I look forward to developing my network literacy even further and making new discoveries. It can only lead to greater “digital literacies” overall.

Liminality: Yes, yes and yes again. Sounds very very familiar. I like to think of myself as efficient – which is not helpful in this context at all. So go with it Goksu!



Where has NGL come from?

How could this course be improved?
A clearly articulated big picture of this course in terms of expectations and requirements provided at the very beginning would have been greatly beneficial. A roadmap would be a good description of what I mean here.

Greater scaffolding to allow people to get familiar with the setup process and tools being used – simpler and fewer tasks in the first couple of weeks. I think this would have helped and allowed time for participants to allocate greater time to connecting with each other. I feel overwhelmed by the number of tasks and readings and tool setup – that I haven’t really been able to concentrate on making meaningful connections. Goodyear talks about access barriers on page 34 in relation to better user interfaces – for me the barrier isn’t about the interfaces but about getting used to “how things work” in this course.   I think what I am saying also ties in a little with Anne’s post for this activity – but I think that the lack of connection might be because there is too much to be done and not enough time to get to know our environment.

Assessment tasks are in development and still unclear. I would love one source of truth for the assessment tasks and a final version that gives some certainty – all in one place.

How could your approach to this course as student be changed?

At this stage, I don’t really have an answer for this one and I am not sure that I will…..

What contradictions appear in the history of NGL?

Something that stood out for me is the Homophily phenomenon. I can actually see how this happens – we are actually doing something similar for the “me as learner” activity – we are looking for people with similar interests. I can also see how this could potentially also contradict the “openness” of NGL through reduced access and creating barriers for some people.

How has NGL changed over the years?

The appearance of mobile devices on the scene – NGL can happen whilst you are “on the move”.

The emergence of Web 2.0 has created a shift from consumption of information and knowledge to production, sharing, curation and repurposing/reusing.

What insights/research appear directly related to you as teacher?

I think the homophily phenomenon mentioned above certainly resonates with me as teacher. I think many academics tend to stick to people in their own disciplinary areas when networking. I am wondering whether opportunities are limited or lost by taking such an approach to NGL?

What connections do you see with what’s in this reading and what you’ve seen before?

The connection that comes to mind is that networking isn’t new,  but NGL is allowing new ways to network. It also confirms that to get the most out of them you need to develop “literacies” to navigate them effectively.

Follow GG's Blog on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: