Chronotopes


Because we might be soon involved in organizing elearning courses related to E & T at work (Office of Innovation and Improvement of the Basque Department of Education) and I believe in OERs and dialogical learning, I am so curious about etmooc…

… I’d like to know:

  • why The Conspirators first decided to cooperate and set this #etmooc (thank you very much!), 
  • which their expectations are,
  • how long it took to get #etmooc ready,
  • how the conspirators make decisions (topics & schedule, why not LMSs… ),
  • which problems they encountered and still find and how they deal with them,
  • which tools they use to cooperate, which timetables, which methods… ,
  • how they shape content in etmooc.org (Dynamic guide, Orientation… ),
  • who supports #etmooc economically (wages for all the invested time, Blackboard Collaborate),
  • how are conspirators going to assess the mooc itself and the performance of the people taking part other than by means of their self-assessment,
  • how are they going to draw conclusions,

So as to add to the list above and following Brown and Renshaw [1] one of my biggest questions right now might be:

how “hybridization is achieved in juxtaposing alternatives by drawing on and revoicing multiple times, spaces, and authors.

because right now I feel chronotopes around me are

“contesting” instead of “hybridizing”

as they should be.

My main obstacle is finding time to read others’ blogs, twits, g+ messages… Thus, my small network (dear all, I hope to interact with you soon) has been built totally at random… Maybe if I wrote less here…

I’ll keep on trying. In the meantime, I’d like to share some of the scaffolds I’m using to build my chronotope, a timeline and a pearltree:

#etmooc timeline on Dipity.

#etmooc and 0. Orientation / 1. Connected learning / 2. Digital storytelling / 3. Digital literacy in open / (txiotxio)

____________
 [1] Brown, R. & Renshaw, P. (2006) “Positioning Students as Actors and Authors: A Chronotopic Analysis of Collaborative Learning Activities” in Mind, Culture and Activity, Vol. 13(3) p. 247-259.