Just as I surmised, the studies involve placing deliberately confusing and illogical links in a sequential document and then observing the obvious.

Read the paragraph then link to the next and (surprise!) if the link is not at the bottom of the page it is harder to find it. Not only that, but there is no back button (!) so if the reader wants to explore the link from “refracted daylight” he or she will be taken directly to the next page and miss all of the rest of the current paragraph. And then the researchers (and Carr) have the gall to claim as a significant observation that the hypertext readers “had difficulty following the text”.

At least Carr does have the courage to respond, but his first comment is just useless bafflegab and in his second he asserts (without any reference) that “Scans of the brains of adept readers reveal that the decision-making portions of the prefrontal cortex are calm, allowing the reader to engage deeply in the process of interpreting meaning (which involves different areas of the brain). Making decisions about links, even when we’re not conscious of those decisions, requires the activation of the prefrontal cortex, which breaks the focus required for deep interpretation.” This would actually be interesting IF the “adept readers” were dealing with intellectually demanding content rather than trying to relax with a novel (which is actually the context of the reading in the study excerpt). In the latter case I can imagine having a quiet pfc and not wanting to be bothered with deciding about links. But when reading Carr’s linkless comment I am pretty sure my pfc was flashing just as fast as my blood pressure was rising.

This last bit brings me back to a point at the start of his post on which I do disagree with Rosenberg . Namely the distinction between artistic and informative linking. Academic writing is often not intended to be read quickly, and although the pattern of a single stem with brief footnote leaf excursions is common, there are also many instances of heavily crosslinked educational material – eg Wikipedia, Mathworld, and RealClimate all come to mind as examples. And on the artistic side, to say that multi-path novels were a dead end is ridiculous. In print they were of course a rather silly idea, but what started with Zork! is now a substantial fraction of the entire entertainment and publishing industry. One may argue that these are no longer text, but I believe that is only partly true and also that it will probably will soon become irrelevant.

But then it turns out that the effect persists even when the later measurement is not recorded. Such cases are dismissed as experimental error, but perhaps it is just that the presence of the apparatus for the final measurement that causes the effect. Just as the half-silvered ends of a laser trap the photon between them, so perhaps do the apparati for initial and final measurement also trap the photon subjects of the Aharonov-Tollakson experiment.

Is there any significance in the fact that the article was originally printed in the April edition?

What prompts this rather childish (or even dickish?) sounding discussion is the recent furore in the world of evangelical atheism over a presentation at a convention of skeptics where blogger Phil Plait (of ‘Bad Astronomy’) suggested that being “a dick” is not the best argumentative strategy if one actually wants to persuade people.

The negative respondents to Plait’s “Don’t be  a Dick” speech take offense which strikes me as exaggerated in at least two ways. Firstly, they seem to think that Plait thinks of “being a dick” as an ongoing characteristic of a person rather than a temporary status arising from particular behaviour (ie they confuse “you are being a dick” with “you are a dick”). Secondly they appear to be exaggerating the seriousness of the accusation because they don’t properly understand the concept of “dickishness” which is really most often thrown as a relatively mild insult more along the lines of implying a bit of pomposity and self delusion than actual malice – though it can certainly carry overtones of meanness as well, especially when it involves puffing up one’s own sense of cleverness by sarcastic belitling of an opponent (and even more so when this is based on a wilful misinterpretation of what that opponent is trying to say). Unfortunately I think Plait encourages this misconception at the start of his talk (and again on his website) by identifying what he is concerned about too closely with aggressiveness when in fact what I think he should really be concerned about it is rather more subtle than that. In general, being a dick is more about being inconsiderate than being aggresive, and in this context it’s really the insensitivity that is the issue.

Why is insensitivity in argument a problem? Because if the object is to change someone’s opinion then it helps to be sensitive as to what might actually work (and to be more concerned with errors in what they really think than picking holes in the details of what they say).

Being a dick is being more concerned with winning arguments than winning minds, and it doesn’t have to be the opponent whose mind is the objective.

Sometimes in a debate with an intransigent opponent some level of mockery or sarcasm can be effective in persuading the audience who are your real targets of persuasion, but if this is overdone (or done by using “straw-man” misstatements of the opposing position) then you risk coming off as “being a dick” and audience members who might have been persuaded may have an emotional reaction against your manner which can cause them to reject a position that they might otherwise have accepted.

A particular form of insensitivity that is relevant here is the failure to recognize that many people don’t like logical arguments. (I suspect that this arises from a feeling of entrapment which seems to come over them whenever a conclusion is shown to be inevitable.) And the negative effect is enhanced when the argument is presented with a clear sense of pride in one’s own cleverness – perhaps because changing focus from content to the affect of the arguer provides an excuse for tuning out the argument itself. So just being right is not enough, and when closing the gate on a trapped inconsistency it is often better to do so quietly and gently rather than with a triumphal slam which may spook the victim’s mind into jumping the fence and undoing all of the work which you had been so proud of.

Of course there are occasions where anger and strong, even nasty, argument is appropriate, and for some, the protection of children from indoctrination may justify mocking uncle Frank’s pious grace and sending grandma crying from the Thanksgiving table. But, although my only evidence for any of this is anecdote and personal experience, I suspect that we have all been dicks at some time or other, and that Plait’s refusal to identify examples is intended to suggest that we look for them in our own behaviour rather than that of others.

Addendum: Ironically, one of the orthodox evangelical atheists objecting to Plait’s plaint, after complaining at length about the lack of specific examples of atheists being dicks, goes on in his very next post to provide one (though admittedly a very minor one – and perhaps only in my sense rather than Plait’s). Jerry Coyne of “Why Evolution is True” responded to neuroscientist Michael Graziano’s speculations as to why many people espouse religions concluding with “If Graziano thinks that religion for everyone is simply is a supportive community and not a set of beliefs about what exists, he needs to get out of the lab more.” The problem with this attempt at humor is that it mocks a position that Graziano did not take – and since Coyne must surely know this, he’s being a bit of a dick.

But apparently he doesn’t like having that pointed out, and resorts to blocking commenters who do so.

And this brings me to what is perhaps a valid criticism of Plaint’s plaint – namely that the choice of even a mild epithet to label the practices he wants to discourage really is asking for the kind of misinterpretation I identified at the outset and can lead from what may be said in a spirit of good humour to a pattern of escalating insults in place of a real conversation.

Note: I have no complaints about Feynman’s behaviour either, but the folks at NASA and Morton Thiokol who were blindsided by his demo of a possible shuttle failure mode at a press conference might feel differently about that.

The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

“It was unbelievable,” said Dr. John Q. Trojanowski, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s not science the way most of us have practiced it in our careers.

The last admission is surprising to a scientific idealist and it shows how the economic motive has distorted the natural progress of science. One may argue that the economic motive has driven progress that would not otherwise have happend, but this is clear evidence that (up to now at least) it has not done so optimally. It is encouraging to see that a return to the scientific ideal of openness is possible within the constraints of the economic motive and I really admire the capacity demonstrated here for finding the win-win solution to the “prisoners dilemma”.

Even — and indeed especially — those who are denominationally faithless can have an experience of faith.

The above quote comes from Simon Critchley’s recent article about Kierkegaard, The Rigor of Love, that appeared in the NYTimes’  Opinionator Blog on Aug 8.  And he continues with:

If faith needs to be underpinned by some sort of doctrinal security, then inwardness becomes externalized and the strenuous rigor of faith evaporates.

Some might identify this position with the much derided (though I don’t really know why) “new age spirituality” of the ’60s and ’70′s, but whether or not there’s a connection I have a lot of sympathy for both.

On the other hand from The Philosophical Primate we have this:

I’ve read many variations on this theme over the years: discussions which purport to redefine ‘faith’ and ‘God,’ but in reality only obscure the meanings of such words as they are commonly used, and in the end utterly fail to offer any definitions at all, new or old. Whatever the intended purpose of the authors, such writings have no effect in the world but to provide intellectual cover for ‘faith’ as more ordinarily defined and manifested, wherein people believe claims about the world to be true — primarily religious claims — in the complete absence of legitimate evidence, or even in the face of clear counter-evidence.

I too am very much concerned with the “intellectual cover” issue, but the Primate is also challenging the intellectual rigour of Critchley’s article and so is effectively fighting on two fronts at once. He opens with a statement that he is “unconvinced” by Critchley’s “word salad” and goes on to say:

The details of Critchley’s essay aren’t interesting enough in and of themselves to address. I’ve seen it all before in many forms, and frankly a point-by-point analysis is wasted effort when each “point” is so thoroughly nebulous and insubstantial:

He’s right, of course, that “point-by-point” refutation would be pointless (in both senses of the word) because he is also right that Critchley’s article isn’t presented as an argument. But he (along with others of his ilk) is wrong to assume that logical rigour is all it’s cut out to be. Not all problems can be resolved by it, and there are other legitimate avenues to conviction (including art and poetry).

With regard to the “intellectual cover” issue, Primate continues the paragraph I first quoted with this:

Defenders of traditional religious thought and institutions, even those whose views are most explicitly rejected by thinkers like Critchley and Kierkegaard, feel free to co-opt their musings nevertheless: The very Christians Kierkegaard criticizes borrow his prestige, and that of other respected academic theologians, to claim that their sort of faith and religion are intellectually respectable; they toss around Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” language as if it were coined in support of their religious views, even though it springs from a critique that rejects so much of what they embrace.

So not only do such writers fail to justify their own claims — because those “claims” are not claims at all, but rather evocative poesy without substance or definable meaning — they advance the cause of those whom they theoretically oppose.

Now this clearly admits that Keirkegaard and Critchley “reject” and “oppose” dogmatic religion, but it objects that the weapons they provide are being used against us. Of course it is in the nature of any weapon that it can backfire or be co-opted by the enemy, but that is often the result of not learning to use it properly or not maintaining control of its use.

I submit that the appropriate response to K&C is not to tear down but reinforce their rigour (or understand their reasons for lacking it), and then use them the way they *want* to be used (and respect their power enough that you take proper care to *not* let them fall into the hands of the enemy).

Ruth’s comments on Dunning’s video are apt. I was dismayed on seeing it myself at the manipulative presentation, including, for example, the frequent juxtaposition (to sinister sounding music yet!) of items representing real fraud or nonsense with others on which it is only fair to say that the jury is still out.

Here are my suggestions:

1. It has recently been proved
(False – it was “proved” in the 19th century by Svante Arrhenius. Yes there were gaps in the “proof”, and some imaginable mechanisms for the climate system to evade it, but they were always far fetched, and foolish to put a high stakes gamble on)
2. Evidence matters
(False – looking for evidentiary proof is like asking for such proof that you will eventually ht the ground after falling off a cliff and arguing about whether the fact that air resistance is reducing your acceleration means that you’ll actually be just fine)
3. We can all make a difference by changing our own lifestyle
(False – it will require universal collective action. So far, just 20% of the world have been “defectors” from abstinence and even with an 80% “participation” rate the strategy of living poor isn’t working)
4. Energy efficiency is the solution
(False – even with 100% efficiecy of all devices, with currently available of foreseeable energy sources there is no way we can continue to do what we do without causing more global warming)
5. Reducing our energy consumption is the solution
(False – Even compulsory mandated limits on travel and other forms of energy consumption would not suffice unless those limits were low enough to reduce us all to a “third world” standard of living. If we lower Western/Northern populations to any acceptable standard of living the effect would be more than offset by what would be necessary to raise all the rest to that same minimum standard.)

So what WILL bring AGW to an end?

Plan A is an immediate compulsory global one-child policy which will halve our population in about 50 years and cut it back to about 2.5 billion by the end of the century,
and if that is considered too draconian there’s always…

with regard to the question about ensuring access for all Canadians, I said:

CRTC should set national rate caps for broadband access via both telephone and cable operators AND should ensure ‘net neutrality’ with regard to content type and source. This does NOT preclude charging users on a per data quantity basis. In fact that is the best way to counter arguments for throttling, and is the only fair way to deal with the fact that some users ‘hog’ bandwidth. The most important fundamental principle to apply is that all transmitters via a given carrier should pay the same rate per unit of consumed bandwidth and similarly for recievers (with a difference between unit costs for transmitters and receivers being acceptable).

and with regard to the question about my own uses of the net (which included a list of common uses), I said:

All of the above. Especially education (both as a provider and a consumer), and business&entertainment (primarily as a consumer), but also (and perhaps most important) general access to information of all kinds.

This includes the above, as well as the health and directory instances mentioned in the expanded question – but it also includes news, location and direction finding, trivia searching, quote identifying, media fact checking, economic and political analysis and countless other things which would previously have required a trip to the library and hours of searching for much less chance of a successful result than I now have in minutes without leaving my home.

Since many items in the above list are required for informed political decision making, and since the providers of the necessary information are often NOT the major entertainment/media conglomerates, it is VITAL that access to ALL information providers be provided on an equal basis to all Canadians without any hint of bias and with complete transparency with regard to how different data sources are treated.

This brings me back to my emphasis in Q2 for the need for not just ‘net neutrality’ but for a guarantee that the present internet will receive the necessary resources and not be allowed to wither in favour of some ‘second tier’ network for the priveleged transmission of big media drivel and brainwashing.

But it’s not just the shape of the network that’s important here; it’s also the semantic content of what we are linking about. (If we had drifted off into a classroom conversation about mutual friends in Argentina then the network connections might look stronger but it might not be so “interesting” from the course’s point of view.)

Perhaps some more direction about how to tag things in a coordinated way (beyond just the one #CritLit tag) would have made it easier for Stephen’s colleagues to extract the necessary information from our network activity (and also for us to get more immediate value from the course!)

For me the effectiveness of Twitter as a tool is definitely increasing as a result of participating in CritLit2010 (though mostly after the fact), and I am learning lots of other things as well. Perhaps my reading of the actual course resources has left me with useful mental hooks for conceptualizing these new skills, but I’m still not convinced of that; so I do think that a more practical approach (as in Maria’s post here) would have been more useful.

Coincidentally, the question of  ‘truth’ also comes up in Philosophy Talk this week, where John Perry takes issue with the pragmatic theory of truth in the promo for a broadcast on William James.  Am I wrong to imagine a connection between James “pragmatic” theory, what Baber says, and the postmodernists’ ideas of  “socially constructed” truth?

I was looking at both Feedblitz and Google’s Feedburner as tools for offering email subscription service, but despite claims in the help files on both sites that Google is supporting Feedblitz as a complement to Feedburner there is no apparent way of reaching it from the Feedburner site.

Now I can understand if the cooperation agreement is perhaps no longer in place and what I was reading is outdated, or if the intent was only to support those who picked up Feedblitz by going to its own site (as I did), but what is really EVIL is that when I tried to edit the email subscriptions properties in Feedburner the only option I was offered was to disable Feedblitz. This kind of Microsoftian ploy is not the kind of thing that will build public confidence in an organization that wants to be the guardian of ALL our information!

So, after a week or so of email exchanges with webnames.ca (where the staff were always polite and helpful but the interface repeatedly defeated me), interspersed with productive work on a new “free trial” site at dreamhost.com, I have decided to go with the latter. And after one last slight unexpected delay in getting the DNS change recorded it seems that everything is now being served from the new host – including the new blog-of-its-own for CMR and an up-to-date installation of Moodle (into which I have been able to upgrade the old work I was doing re inclusion of editable graphs and dynamic math in quizzes).

This Summer I participated in Stephen Downes and Rita Kop’s  on-line ‘Critical Literacies‘ course (#CritLit2010) – partly with a view to increasing my networking skills, and also attended the CADGME conference on Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry in Math Education – to get some idea of whether there are still any legs left on either my GX2 java project or the College Math Resources website.

But I am also looking forward to deeper reading in some of the other areas that I occasionally touch on here – and maybe even eventually coming up with something useful to say!

Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

Faced with the fundamental question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually.

I suspect that some people do believe this, but if such a faith has been expressed by even one of those targetted by Rosenbaum then I will be surprised.  So if anyone is still at the level of  “grade-school stuff” it is Rosenbaum rather than those he calls out – but what more can one expect of a “Templeton scholar”?

Commenter ‘Robert Barnes’ expresses this nicely:

Like many religious and philosophical arguments, Rosenbaum creates a straw-man argument by incorrectly claiming that athiests believe something self-evidently silly and then arguing that because they believe this, they are no better than religious fundamentalists.

Christians (and theists) believe that there is a God who is both the creator of the universe and who also takes a personal interest in us: listening to prayers, caring what we do, etc. I describe myself as an Athiest because I am certain that this is wrong. Agnostics are not sure about this.

This does NOT mean that I have blind faith that science will eventually uncover the answer to fundamental questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing?” I doubt that we’ll ever know the answer to these questions. It DOES mean that I don’t seek the answer to these questions in mysticism and supersitition.

Commenter ‘Decorum’ writes:

One final complaint: in a very short article, the author shamelessly claims for himself the characteristics of respectfulness, humility, troublesomeness (in the Thomas Becket sense), intellect and courage. The humility claim is comically false and I take issue with the fourth of these claims too. A little more agnosticism about your own talents would not be remiss, Mr R.

Much more intelligent than what Rosenbaum puts forward himself is what he quotes from Paul Kurtz, (former editor of  The Skeptical Inquirer) who criticized the  “true believer atheists,” whom he called “true unbelievers” for behaving just like religious zealots in Free Inquiry as follows :

Nonetheless, there still lingers among some true unbelievers an unflinching conviction toward atheism—God does not exist, period; they are convinced of that! This kind of dogmatic attitude holds that this and only this is true and that anyone who deviates from it is a fool. This insults a great number of reflective believers.

Commenter ‘Northcroft’ dismisses Rosnebaum’s nonsense as “hot air” and adds:

For what it is worth, I am a Christian atheist – an Anglican one. Anglican Christianity is my tradition, my mythology, but not my belief system.

There are two reasons that “People read on the web” is not a myth (by which I mean a widely believed falsehood). Firstly it is not widely believed, and secondly it is not false.

Almost anyone these days, if asked to describe their main behaviour on the web, would identify scanning rather than reading. And they would be right because that is what most websites are designed for.  So it is foolish for “usability experts” to express surprise or claim some merit for the discovery that people typically approach a new web page by looking for the navigational elements that they have been trained to expect.

But although it is not widely believed that “people read on the web”, there are in fact many web sites which are designed for deeper reading, and although some may initially aproach them incorrectly there must be plenty who want to read deeply online or otherwise they would not survive. (Examples include thoughtful blogs like PhilosophyTalk, and Real Climate, as well as various on-line books such as David McKay’s Without the Hot Air, along with most of the items linked to by Arts&Letters Daily)

Thus the idea that people read on the web is not a myth, and it is rather the claim that it is one which is the widely believed falsehood. So the idea that it’s a myth is itself a myth which makes it a mythical myth.

(And although it’s not the first on my list I think it deserves the #1 position – which I have been holding open til now while waiting for the perfect candidate).

A large part of the discussion was devoted to the question of how confidently it can be asserted that “interesting learning” occurred in #CritLit2010. (With “interesting learning” apparently referring to the acquisition of new knowledge rather than just unfounded beliefs or behavioural responses – which are also of course examples of learning but not so interesting)

In the course of that discussion Stephen referred to http://www.downes.ca/presentation/251 slide 23, where the inference of learning appears to be derived from observation of behaviour in a social network. But it requires quite sophisticated observation to confirm that the behaviour is based on beliefs that are founded on good reasons as discussed in this posting. (For example it might involve observation of exchanges between members of the network when solving problems together and evaluation of the explanations given to one another in that process.) Also, there would have to be a change of behaviour (beyond that attributable to increasing familiarity with that specific network) in order to infer that the demonstated knowledge was newly acquired and so evidence of learning.  Given the looseness and scale of the network involved it would be a huge task to sift through all of the exchanges to identify signs of increased knowledge in even just a few of the participants.  So I must say I agree with those who are skeptical of Stephen and co’s ability to provide convincing evidence that “interesting learning” has occurred (other than perhaps by direct testimony of the participants).

Basically he appears skeptical of its value as more than just a new lingo without practical consequences:

But that is all that connectivism does, add a different perspective couched in different terminology, jargon if you will.  It does not solve any issues, on its own. It is not the end game of learning theory.

I must admit that I have had similar concerns as to whether it had any direct paedagogical implications. But the jargon has some appeal to me because of its relation to the neural network model of how learning may occur at the physical level, and so I remain open minded as to the possibility that thinking in “connectivist” terms may in fact lead to techniques which might not otherwise have been discovered. (Perhaps it might help in dealing with the chronic problem of failure of “transference” of a concept or technique from one domain of application to another – but I have nothing specific in mind at this point.)
Also of course, any reasonably valid understanding of how learning works may help with the Critical Literacy of avoiding the learning of things that are not true.

Where I have even more difficulty is with imagining possible uses of the analogy between neural and social networks (which seems to get a lot of play in the “Connectivist” worldview). Yes, the development of patterns of connection in a social network may be “reinforced” by interaction with some external stimulus, but I guess I am not sufficiently social to have any idea of a non-trivial pattern as a goal – let alone how to design an appropriate stimulus to achieve it. Perhaps some complex business or political relationships mught be enhanced by forcing a social network to “learn” its way into a particular pattern though – so maybe  Hari Seldon will one day be quoting Stephen Downes as he takes the first steps towards the Foundation. And maybe that makes an understanding of how to train social networks a Critical Literacy for the future.

I enrolled in this largely out of curiosity about what it would entail and in the knowledge that my travel plans for subsequent weeks would make it difficult to devote much time to it.  I was interested enough to go through most of the readings and to make some discussion entries and blog postings, but if I had had to pay for it then I think I would have been a bit disappointed.

Perhaps I am being too critical, but it seemed to me that a number of features didn’t work as they should [1], resources were sometimes only loosely related to the nominal themes[2], and there was no mechanism or criteria provided for evaluation of progress.

But then again, if paying for it I might have been more demanding by way of asking the organizers for explanations of their design and/or evaluation of my contributions.

Here are my responses to the ‘End of Session’ Survey (with questions included exactly as copied from the survey web page):

1. Please indicated your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree.

• The course objectives were clearly stated and understood – 2 (not clearly enough for me to really understand them – but I had some objectives of my own)
• The course fulfilled its aims and objectives – 3 (not sure)
• The content of the course was as I expected – 4 (pretty much)
• The course content was sufficient to achieve stated objectives – 3
• The materials and resources used were relevant and useful – 4 (yes)
• The invited speakers helped me make meaningful connections with weekly themes and concepts in the course – 3 (I missed most of them)
• The course was intellectually stimulating
  - 4 (yes)

2. Please indicated your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree.

• Facilitators were in general well prepared and knowledgeable
  - 4
• Facilitators were good at explaining things – 4
• Facilitators made the subject of Critical Literacies interesting - 4
• In general, facilitators were enthusiastic about the weekly themes -4
• There was enough opportunity to interact and participate – 4
• I could contact the facilitators when required – 4

3. Please indicated your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree.

Lecturing – 1, Discussion – 2, Group Work – 5, Problem Solving – 5, Practical Activities – 5, Support material and resources – 3.

4. Please comment on any other aspects of your learning experience in the Critical Literacies Course, emphasizing what was “positive” about your experience.

It satisfied some of my curiosity as to what such a course might entail.

5. Please comment on any other aspects of your learning experience in the Critical Literacies Course, emphasizing what was “negative” about your experience.

I was frustrated by what felt like a lack of integration between different modes of interaction (eg blog postings vs moodle discussions)- especially since the aggregators weren’t working for the first week or so. And also by what struck me as weak connections between proposed readings and nominal weekly topics and the lack of any criteria for evaluation of progress.

6. Please comment on the impact of the course structure, activities, resources and presentations on your learning.

The course structure could have been more effective if better implemented (eg with feeds working better to aggregate contributions from different sources).
On the Activities I can’t comment since there were technical problems for the first two weeks and after that I wasn’t able to participate in synchronous activities due to travelling.
The resources were interesting but often seemed at best only weakly related to the nominal weekly topics.
I was only able to attend one of the Presentations and I did find that interesting.

7. Please indicated your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree.

• Support and feedback mechanisms were sufficient and effective throughout the Critical Literacies course – 2 (Probably sufficient but effectivenes was hampered by my own failure to ask enough questions)
• Support and feedback mechanisms were made clear in advance – 3
• More customized support and feedback mechanisms would have been helpful in advancing my learning (e.g., based on my personal profile, past experience, etc….) – 3
• I have received good advice and support mostly from facilitators in the course – 3
• I have received good advice and support mostly from participants in the course – 4
• I did my own thing during the course so I did not have to rely on course structure and support – 5

8. Please comment on support and feedback in the Critical Literacies course, using the space provided below. Share with us what was “positive” or “helpful” for you.

Support and feedback were provided by peers in the course, but to some extent this was hampered by my own failure to ask enough questions and by failure of the system to deliver all of my contributions to all participants for feedback.

9. Please comment on support and feedback mechanisms and/or issues in the Critical Literacies course, using the space provided below. Share with us what was “negative” or “not helpful” for you.

It would have been useful to have some method of self-evaluation relative to externally defined objectives.

10. Please indicated your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree.

• The course structure is not what I expected – 2 (Actually it was pretty close to what I expected in structure – but not in implementation)
• The course structure was effective in supporting my learning – 2 (It might have been more effective if implemented differently)
• I did not feel advice was available when I needed to make choices in the course – 4 (I felt that it probably was available if I had taken the time to seek it)

11. Please feel free to provide any additional comments on structure and support within the Critical Literacies course, using the space provided below.

Re structure see also my comment on #6. It would also have been helpful to have more assigned tasks and activities (preferably asynchronous) and more criteria and/or tools for self-evaluation.

12. Please indicated your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree.

• The course helped me to acquire foundational knowledge of critical thinking – 1 (I already had such knowledge)
• The course helped me to develop my own critical thinking capacities – 1 (I already had such capacities)
• The course has not had an impact on my work or area of study outside the course – 2 (It has sensitized me to some of the difficulties that students might encounter in my own on-line courses)
• I made new friends – 4 (Actually this has yet to be confirmed)
• As a results of the course I now feel confident in tackling unfamiliar subject matter in a massive open online learning environment - 1 (see next answer)

13. Please feel free to comment on any other aspects related to skills and capacities developed as a result of participating in the Critical Literacies Course, using the space provided below.

I still feel reasonably confident about tackling unfamiliar subject matter in a massive open online learning environment but I can’t say that confidence was increased by taking this course.

14. Please share your impressions for the following items using the response set provided.

Do you intend on taking a new MOOC course? - Maybe

If you plan on taking a new MOOC course, do you know what course you plan on taking next? – No

Do you feel you have gained new skills through the course? – Maybe, but if so only marginally

15. If you answered yes to the question Do you feel you have gained new skills through the course, please specify what skills in the list provided below. Otherwise, skip to the next question.

The only area where I may have gained some new skill is in the area of using multiple channels of communication – but I had already started working on this and clearly still have a long way to go.

16. Please feel free to comment on skills and future plans in the space provided below.

I clearly need more skills and/or better tools for coordinating different sources of information and different channels of communication.

17. Are there any other positive or negative aspects of the course that you would like to highligh at this point? If so, please comment below.

The main positive aspect of my experience with the course is that it has prompted me to consider the challenge of integrating different communication channels, both in my own learning environment and in the development of web-based courses.

18. Do you have any suggestions for massive open online courses to be held in the future?

Definitely provide clearer instructions and better guidance to available resources. And test the technology properly (eg registration system, conferencing software, aggregation systems) *before* starting the course.

19. If you have any other comments please make them here.

Despite the frustrations, I actually enjoyed participating in this course.

(The remaining five questions were just demographics and identification)

Notes:-
1 Specifically login glitches during the first week, problems with video-conferencing, RSS feeds needing to be reset, and discussion summaries never getting set up in the ‘daily’. None of these is exactly huge, but they made it difficult to be confident of having found all of the other students’ postings (or that they had seen mine) and I would have thought that with a bit more testing beforehand things would have gone a lot more smoothly.
2 I was puzzled, for example, by the fact that the readings for the topic of ‘Syntax’ included more about ‘Ontology’ which I would relate more to Semantics.