<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analogue projects and digital technology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/01/analogue-projects-and-digital-technology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/01/analogue-projects-and-digital-technology/</link>
	<description>Pontydysgu - Educational Research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:43:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Harrington</title>
		<link>http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/01/analogue-projects-and-digital-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-875</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Harrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/01/analogue-projects-and-digital-technology/#comment-875</guid>
		<description>Hi there Graham and Michael,
Getting communication to work between partners is always going to be difficult to &#039;manufacture&#039; , I have also tried this an it tends to die a slow lingering death!
What appears to be more useful is an organic growth between like minded parties which grows naturally - perhaps originally through something like Twitter or blogs, this then develops into group links, which has happened in some of the Ning networks and group wiki projects that I have been involved in. The teahcers/adminstrators within these communities then have invested their time and tend to be more proactive in pushing projects on to their conclusion.... Paul</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there Graham and Michael,<br />
Getting communication to work between partners is always going to be difficult to &#8216;manufacture&#8217; , I have also tried this an it tends to die a slow lingering death!<br />
What appears to be more useful is an organic growth between like minded parties which grows naturally &#8211; perhaps originally through something like Twitter or blogs, this then develops into group links, which has happened in some of the Ning networks and group wiki projects that I have been involved in. The teahcers/adminstrators within these communities then have invested their time and tend to be more proactive in pushing projects on to their conclusion&#8230;. Paul</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Hotrum</title>
		<link>http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/01/analogue-projects-and-digital-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-859</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Hotrum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/01/analogue-projects-and-digital-technology/#comment-859</guid>
		<description>Your words are like a mirror before me and your sighs are mine as well. The trials of promoting opportunities for connections that others find difficult, intimidating or just don&#039;t find - at all. I&#039;m into month 9 for a community I built for a group of teachers across Alberta - I was hoping to anlayze their interaction but - guess what? there&#039;s nothing happening! They said they wanted a space, I gave them one, and they are nowhere in sight. I held five sparsely attended face to face sesions, hoping to create a champion class - ha! Is it the software? Are they communicating elsewhere? What other barriers (adminsitrative, competitive, firewall, access, etc)? Or maybe they do, yet don&#039;t want to communicate. That is, they don&#039;t want the responsibility of membership, the freedom of sharing their assets (perhaps suffering a lack of confidence in their own ability and not wanting to &quot;put&quot; themselves and their work out there for others). Ultimately I believe our audience is just not ready for continuous communication. They enjoy sporadic, undocumented, impermanent exchanges, or time-based, structured project activity. But the idea of impromptu, casual social networking - at least in the populace(s) I have experienced - is an onerous bit of self-reflection that they would rather not be involved in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your words are like a mirror before me and your sighs are mine as well. The trials of promoting opportunities for connections that others find difficult, intimidating or just don&#8217;t find &#8211; at all. I&#8217;m into month 9 for a community I built for a group of teachers across Alberta &#8211; I was hoping to anlayze their interaction but &#8211; guess what? there&#8217;s nothing happening! They said they wanted a space, I gave them one, and they are nowhere in sight. I held five sparsely attended face to face sesions, hoping to create a champion class &#8211; ha! Is it the software? Are they communicating elsewhere? What other barriers (adminsitrative, competitive, firewall, access, etc)? Or maybe they do, yet don&#8217;t want to communicate. That is, they don&#8217;t want the responsibility of membership, the freedom of sharing their assets (perhaps suffering a lack of confidence in their own ability and not wanting to &#8220;put&#8221; themselves and their work out there for others). Ultimately I believe our audience is just not ready for continuous communication. They enjoy sporadic, undocumented, impermanent exchanges, or time-based, structured project activity. But the idea of impromptu, casual social networking &#8211; at least in the populace(s) I have experienced &#8211; is an onerous bit of self-reflection that they would rather not be involved in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

