Posted by: MandyS | November 27, 2010

Evaluation of Activity 6.3

It doesn’t seem two minutes since this Activity was starting and now it is at an end. I have really enjoyed collaborating this time, I think because we have done just that – collaborated! For me the Skype conference was key to this; being able to chat synchronously with my fellow ‘groupees’ added a more personal touch and made me feel much more relaxed. Using technology has been far less daunting and I have actually found I know more than I think; I have even been able to provide advice to others, which at the start of the course was just unimaginable! Our roles have been well-defined and the work shared around evenly with everyone having the chance to try out new thing where they wanted to. Knowing what one is doing and when it has to be done is always a bonus as it makes the whole task far less daunting. I am not sure that we have really discussed the principles though. Rather posted our own thoughts and they have emerged by default out of those thoughts and not from actual discussion. I think this is down to the asynchronous nature of this aspect of the collaboration. Group B discussed at length first the meaning of ‘good’ practice and then which cases they should use as part of their discussion. They then completed this discussion with a survey to determine which studies to use. certainly thorough and a perhaps a tad overkill? It probably all comes down to interpretation of the Activity and it is interesting that this is a comment made in the TMA in relation to summarising the activity. Did we need to consider what is ‘good’ practice first or had we not already done this in Activity 6.2? In theory, we should have done this first but in reality, Activity 6.2 was largely ignored; the focus being Activity 6.3. Having said all that, in considering the case studies, we have identified what is ‘good’ and what is perhaps not so ‘good’ and I think our presentation evidences that. This is what the task was all about and how we get there is largely irrelevant just so long as we do.

The downside was my inability to join in the last two conferences. We tried DimDim and, although it is a good ‘tool’, it simply did not do what we needed it to do. I then could not get onto Skype (snow, no wifi) for the last two. However, I have been able to chat by text with a few of the group and that has been good.

The overall presentation looks good. I am not sure I agree that we have used ‘tools’ just to use them. Yes, we have tried to evidence our ability to do that but I think in doing so we have satisfied one of the key principles, Variety. It remains to be seen how the presentation is received.

Having just completed the evaluation document, I am pleased to see just how much I have contributed. Bizarrely, now the course is reaching its final stages, I am actually settling into enjoying it!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

lawyerineducation

Putting the MAODE into practice

Lawyer In The Making

Rebecca Morgan

Public Law for Everyone

Professor Mark Elliott

Paul Maharg

legal education :: technology :: rhetoric :: legal theory

The Ed Techie

My Journey through MAODE

Legal Verdict

Legal Commentary from The Open University Law School

%d bloggers like this: