Pontydysgu – Bridge to Learning

I’ve been working for Pontydysgu for 6 months now, and as of Saturday I have a whole 6 weeks off!! However much I would enjoy spending this watching the tv and eating, I have been allowed this time off to travel South East Asia. With the current issues in Bangkok where my first night is based this could be interesting. This may seem like a stupid idea, but in fact measures are being taken to ensure the hotel is safe and my choice was an escort to the hotel and being in the company of a group for my first night in Asia, or arriving evening time alone in Cambodia. So Thailand won. Anyway the point is I intend to blog whilst I am away and Graham suggested that I leave this on the Pontydysgu site. I can’t promise it will be exciting or that it will necessarily always be well written but if you are interested in traveling Asia, maybe you will find it interesting.

Whilst working for Pontydysgu I have done many jobs that are not expected of someone my age, and level of education. Being 18 and yet to do my degree, to be amongst professors and people in the higher levels of the degree system should have seemed intimidating. But in some ways I found it to be the opposite. My age meant that I had few in the field to compete with, in that I had something different to bring to the table, a younger perspective. This isn’t always relevant and in many practical and age unrelated situations this perspective wasn’t helpful. However when working in areas to do with teaching, internships, or careers guidance, I found myself in an odd position. In the mind set of a student being given an insight to that of a teacher.
This here raises the question, when in this situation does my lack of qualifications cease to be relevant? Is in fact my experience actually a valuable asset to such situations, in that it is probably closer to that of the target group?
I like to think so. However I think the key message here is not to be drawn from my lack of qualifications, but my individual insight. It shows the value of users being involved in development processes and being given a chance to play a larger role in their own fate. In fact I think often the role of expert is not considered widely enough. In teacher, student situations the teacher is considered an expert in the teaching process. However the student is also a direct participant in this process and therefore I believe can also be given the title ‘expert’. When reaching this point in my thinking, having progressed a long way from my own lack of qualifications, I found myself reassessing the teacher to learner dynamic or even user to provider.
Throughout my experience of school, the teacher held the power and the key to learning. However is this right? Should learning be more of a two way process and contain a more balanced dialogue? In the narrower context of school I have difficulty seeing how this teacher learner balance can be created. However when looking towards the concept of Personal Learning Environments this sort of relationship is implied, in the act of students leading the learning and a teacher, or to quote Vygotsky, More Knowledgable Other (allowing the teacher to be a peer or resource), providing the support.
To get back to the wider concept of users, I think it is important to consider the role of the user in decision making processes, such as in the European Projects in which I have been participating as a member of Pontydysgu. The user, in my point of view, has an ‘expert’ opinion to provide. Equal to that of people that have worked in the field for years. This give and take between users and the group, that for the sake of ease I will call, providers, is so important because they both have separate strengths to offer. That of the user being particularly essential when the field of work is one that is fast changing and therefore fresh perspectives are constantly necessary eg. technology.
In this type of working environment hierarchical thinking falls down, as hierarchies based on amount of experience become confused, experience itself becoming relevant in quality rather than quantity. Therefore it is necessary for both providers and users to be treated as having equal, but different levels of knowledge in whatever field the focus happens to be on.
From talking to Cheryl Turner from NIACE I understand that this is a consideration within the adult education circles. However from my experience, within the institutional settings of schools I think there is some way to go before this is recognised and the word expert isn’t considered on a hierarchical basis and amount of experience isn’t the main factor defining level of experience.

Another in the occasional series on the use of the internet for Careers Advice, Information and Guidance. This series is based on research undertaken by Jenny Bimrose, Sally Anne Barnes and Graham Attwell for the UK based trust CfBT. If you are interested in reading more, the full report can be downloaded for free from the CfBT web site.

The proliferation of the use of ICT has combined with other factors (like changes in family structure and decline in manufacturing industries) to bring about profound shifts in how young people make sense of themselves. For example, the traditional move from identifying with the family to a single peer group has now been replaced by identifying with family to multiple peer groups, many of which are virtual. ICT also ensures that young people now have access to an instant, international, dynamically-shifting and vast range of stories and forms of knowledge that can inform their identity management. These identities are rarely unified, but rather multiple in nature and increasingly fragmented (Murakami, 2008).

All of this has relevance for young people’s transitions into and through the world of work. The availability of technology influences the way that clients’ access and use guidance services. It also has the potential to support transitions, for example, by helping young people identify transferable skills, help connect them to the job market and support the development of the critical analytic skills for negotiating their way through both their virtual and physical worlds (Riley, 2008). To perform any of these tasks successfully, however, young people are likely to require support from a technologically confident and effective facilitator. It is also suggested that they will also need help with learning how to engage with technology without getting lost or overwhelmed, as well as protection from bullying facilitated by technology, invasion of privacy and advertising (Riley, 2008). Even where the role of ICT expands to respond to the needs of young people in transition there is, therefore, a continuing need for professional support for Careers Personal Advisors

This professional support will need to adapt and accommodate the different requirements that young people have of technology. A fourfold typology that emerged from recent research helps us appreciate the levels of differentiation that occur in the engagement with ICT amongst young people. These four types of relationships comprise:

• Digital pioneers – advanced and innovative users of the potential of technology;
• Creative producers – building websites, positing movies, photos and music to share with friends and family;
• Everyday communicators – making their lives easier through texting and MSN; and
• Information gatherers – typically Google and Wikipedia addicts, for whom cutting and pasting are a way of life.

(Green & Hannon, 2007, p.11)

These styles that young people have of interacting with technology need to be considered when designing and implementing internet-based services for young people, though a crucial factor in implementing effective guidance services will be the Personal Advisors and their managers. They typically see the world very differently from their clients and yet it is often these adults who mediate the type of ICT used in guidance and the ways it should be used. The relative lack of impact of technology in education to date highlights not only the importance of providing young people with a more active and central voice in determining the nature and role of ICT in their learning experiences, but also the need to shift away from focusing too much on hardware and more towards relationships, networks and skills (Attwell, Cook and Ravenscroft, 2009; Green and Hannon, 2007; Riley, 2008).

References

Attwell, G., Cook, J., and Ravenscroft, A. (2009). Appropriating technologies for contextual knowledge: Mobile Personal Learning Environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second World Congress on the Information Society.

Green, H., and Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a digital generation. London: Demos. Retrieved 3 August 2009, from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-%20web.pdf

Murakami, K. (2008). Re-imagining the future: young people’s construction of identities through digital storytelling. London: DCSF/Futurelab. Retrieved 4 August 2009, from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/final_murakami_youngpeoplesdigitalstorytelling_20081201_jb2.pdf

Riley, S. (2008). Identity, community and selfhood: understanding the self in relation to contemporary youth cultures. London: Futurelab/DCSF. Retrieved 4 August 2009, from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/final_riley_identitycommunityselfhood_20081201_jb.pdf

Yesterday’s OLDaily included excellent coverage by Stephen Downes of the growing Facebook privacy row. Personally I particularly enjoyed Danah Boyds rant:

What pisses me off the most are the numbers of people who feel trapped. Not because they don’t have another choice. (Technically, they do.) But because they feel like they don’t. They have invested time, energy, resources, into building Facebook what it is. They don’t trust the service, are concerned about it, and are just hoping the problems will go away. It pains me how many people are living like ostriches. If we don’t look, it doesn’t exist, right?? This isn’t good for society. Forcing people into being exposed isn’t good for society. Outting people isn’t good for society, turning people into mini-celebrities isn’t good for society.

And I very much like Frances Bell’s comment citing Tony Hirst, “Ah, but you’re not Facebook’s customer. Advertisers are their customers. You are the product they’re selling.”

My Facebook account is still hanging on, but it is getting very close to disappearing (and all I use it for is forwarding my Twitter feed anyway. I have at least 20 friendship requests ending from people who I have no idea who are!).

Of course Stephen Downes is right when he says the answer is learning to manage our digital identities. But I am not sure digital literacy alone is enough. I think young people should be able to understand why they need to manage their identities on Facebook as well as how. And this goes way beyond internet safety. They should be able to understand the reasons why Facebook is making such drastic changes to its privacy policies and what such changes mean. Of course this involves judgement. I am prepared to accept the Google Buzz balls up on privacy was just that – a balls up.

The Facebook privacy issues are not the result of bad planning or even evangelical thinking on behalf of the Facebook directors. They are driven purely by the desire to make more profit for shareholders, regardless of the opinion or interests of users. And young people need to be able to understand this: to understand the motives driving different web developments and to understand the use of the internet within wider society.

Digital literacy is not enough. Young people need to understand the  politics and economics of the web. And soon!

Pontydysgu has added its name to the 12589 other organisations from across Europe who have signed the Trust Researchers online petition.

The web site says: “The funding of European research should be based on trust and responsible partnering. Today researchers in Europe face a lot of red tape and cumbersome financial regulations. We are not against rules. But we need to simplify.

Those who have signed this declaration ask the European Council of Ministers and the Parliament to simplify the administrative procedures and the financial provisions of European research funding.”

Whilst we understand the need for financial transparency and accountability, too much of our time is presently spent filling in forms and returns which would seem to add little to research, to accountability or to the public use of our research. And, if research is to contribute to societal development, we need better dialogue betwen funders, researchers and practitioners, people who use our work. Personally I would also like to see more discussion over the purpose and ethics of publicly funded research.

I have talked with many of the European civil servants responsible for managing and developing European research and development programmes and know they share our frustrations about the endless layers of bureaucracy that envelope programmes and initiatives. There seems to be a number of different causes – the demands of elected (and non elected) politicians, the adoption of inappropriate measures for monitoring particular programmes, the requirement to collect data for reporting purposes and a lack of understanding of the process and outcomes of research. Hopefully the petition could begin a dialogue around some of these issues.

I am towards the end of a long series of meetings, hence the limited posts on this site of late. Whilst the meetings have involved far too much travel (and I wonder if some could have been better done by video), they have allowed me the privilege of meeting and talking to many interesting, motivated and talented teachers, researchers and developers from all over Europe.

Here is just a few reflections on the discussions I have had.

Compared to even two years ago, there seems to be increasing interest and understanding by teachers of the potential of using the the web for learning and especially of using Web 2.0 and social software applications. Especially there appears to be an understanding of supporting learners in constructing their own meanings and understandings, rather than passively consuming materials. Although this may be because many of those I have met are involved in projects, teachers seem more confident about their own learning and about developing their own learning materials. And there is a real excitement about the potential of using multimedia for learning, once more not just consuming but creating audio and video.

This may be just the people I mix with, but many teachers also seem to understand the Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning Environments are for managing students, rather than providing an active tool for learning.

All this ids important. For years researchers have been saying that a major barrier to the uptake of e-learning has been the attitude of teachers, based on their lack of understanding of the technologies and their poteial for learning. I am not sure if this is true, but I think there is a change underway.

However, there remain very real barriers. Many teachers, whilst aware of the possibilities of new media, say the education system makes it difficult for them to change existing tecahing and learning practice. The reasons vary but include lack of infrastructure, lack of understanding and support from management, an overly prescriptive curriculum, lack of time, and rigid and individualistic assessment practices.

I would see these as real tensions. Teachers are increasingly adapting to the way learners are using new technologies in their daily life. And for the first time we are seeing generations of teachers who themselves have grown up with the internet. Yet still education systems are remarkably conservative and remarkably resilient to changes in society.

This leads to discussions about change. Can teachers themselves initiate such change bottom up through introducing new technologies and pedagogies in their own practice. Can we drive change through modernising teacher training? How effective are projects in embedding change? How about ‘innovation champions’? Can we persuade managements of the potential new ways of tecahing and learning offer? How effective is lobbying for changes in policy – for top down driven innovation.

I suspect the answer is all of these.But I think we have to move beyond the change management idea. This is not going to be an orderly change from ‘old’ policy and practice to a shiny new world of technology enhanced learning. It will be messy. the problem is not the modernisation of schools, but rather that our schooling systems are increasingly dysfunctional within our society and increasingly irrelevant to the way many young people communicate and develop understandings and meanings.

But I still tend to think changes in teaching and learning may come from outside the education systems. It has always seemed odd to me that most research, development and resources in the use of technology for learning have been focused on those already in education – in other words giving more to those that had. The greatest potential of Technology Enhanced Learning is to open up learning to everyone in our societies – to socially disadvantaged people, to different age groups, to those in work and those unemployed. And it is here that we are possibly more free for institutional inertia to experiment and to innovate, to develop new pedagogic approaches and new patterns of playing, working and learning.

In time who knows – the educational establishment may learn from the practice of learning outside the school.

Badaniami nad e-learningiem zajmuje się pedagogika, informatyka, psychologia, socjologia, etnografia … oraz kognitywistyka. Czym zajmuje się kognitywistyka i czego od kognitywistyki może nauczyć się e-learning? Na ten temat rozmawiałam z Markiem Goliaszem z Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu oraz autorem bloga mechanikaumyslu.pl. Oto zapis naszej rozmowy:

IB: Czym zajmuje się właściwie kognitywistyka?

MG: Kognitywistyka jest nauką zajmującą się umysłem i jego funkcjami – myśleniem, uczeniem się, językiem, świadomością, emocjami. Jest to nauka o szeroko pojętym poznaniu. Cechą wyróżniającą kognitywistykę jest jej multidyscyplinarność – są w niej wątki psychologiczne, filozoficzne, informatyczne oraz neurobiologiczne.

IB: A jak wykorzystywuje się kognitywistykę w e-learningu?

MG: Jednym z zastosowań kognitywistyki jest problem wizualizacji danych – jak złożone pojęcia przedstawiać tym, którzy spotykają się z nimi po raz pierwszy. Standarowym przykładem wykorzystania nauk poznawczych w e-learningu jest teoria obciążenia poznawczego (cognitive load theory) Johna Swellera. Osobiście uważam, że w e-learningu jest szerokie pole do popisu dla kognitywistyki, ponieważ wiedza ekspercka i technologia nie wystarczą do zbudowania efektywnych środowisk przekazu wiedzy.

IB: Dlaczego nie wystarczają wiedza ekspercka i technologie? Co tutaj proponuje kognitywistyka?

MG: Obserwując sposoby wymiany wiedzy przez internet zauważam, że często eksperci nie przejmują się sposobem przekazu wiedzy, a firmy zajmujące się wdrażaniem e-learningu za bardzo stawiają na zachwycenie kursantów efektami graficznymi. Na mój sposób myślenia o przekazie wiedzy wpłynęło zdanie Cushinga Andersona – “Dobre szkolenie jest zawsze kompromisem między możliwościami percepcyjnymi osoby szkolonej a metodą prezentacji wiedzy i sposobem jej dostarczenia”. Badania kognitywistyczne pozwalają określić owe możliwości percepcyjne.

Jednym z przykładów takich zastosowań jest zasada podwójnego kodowania sformułowana przez Paivio, zgodnie z którą, jesteśmy w stanie efektywniej kodować docierający do nas przekaz, jeśli wykorzystujemy zarówno wzrok jak i słuch. Dalsze badania pokazały, że wzrokowo lepiej kodujemy to, co konkretne, a to, co abstrakcyjne lepiej przyswajami słuchowo. Lepsze kodowanie oznacza w tym kontekście lepsze zapamiętywanie i późniejsze wydobycie z pamięci.

IB: Jakie są dla Pana najbardziej zaskakujące wyniki badań kognitywistycznych?

MG: Myślę, że bardzo ciekawym wynikiem na gruncie kognitywistyki było odkrycie przez Millnera i Goodale dwóch szlaków przetwarzania wzrokowego (two streams hypothesis) – jednego na użytek percepcji, a drugiego na użytek działania. Na poziomie mózgu za każdy z nich odpowiada osobny szlak neuronowy. Badanie to rzutuje na nasz sposób myślenia o percepcji jako o mechanizmie biernego przyswajania tego, co znajduje się na zewnątrz. Coraz więcej współczesnych badań pokazuje, że percepcja służy przede wszystkim sprawnemu działaniu.  Więcej o tym można przeczytać w wydanej przez PWN książce “Mózg wzrokowy w działaniu“. W dziedzinie uczenia się, a więc bliżej zagadnień e-learningu, duży wpływ wywarła na mnie książka Manfreda Spitzera “Jak się uczy mózg“. Autor pisze w niej o tym, że sieci neuronowe w naszym mózgu uczą się bez przerwy. Najbardziej wydajnym sposobem uczenia się jest więc zapoznawanie się z jak największą liczbą przykładów. Spitzer dowodzi, że nasz mózg potrafi sam wyekstrahować z tych przykładów reguły i zasady. Czyż nie jest to znaczący wynik dla metodyków e-learningu i wszystkich zajmujących się nauczaniem?

IB: Jak najbardziej. Mysle, że z wynikami takich badań powinni zaznajomić się wszyscy, którzy zajmują się nauczaniem. Moje kolejne pytanie dotyczy pola badań kognitywistyki. Powiedział Pan, że kognitywistyka zajmuje się percepcją na poziomie indywiduum:

Czy w kognitywistyce jest też nurt, który zajmuje się grupowymi zjawiskami, takimi jak współpraca międzyludzka, kooperacja?

MG: Tak, coraz więcej badaczy zajmuję się takimi zagadnieniami jak poznanie społeczne (social cognition). Przykładem badań w tej dziedzinie jest odkrycie neuronów lustrzanych, czyli takich komórek nerwowych w korze premotorycznej, które aktywują się gdy obserwujemy czynności podejmowanych przez innych. Wyniki te są podstawą do tego, aby zdefiniować na nowo pojęcie empatii. Rozumiem jednak intencję Pani pytania. O tym jak skuteczne jest uczenie się od siebie nawzajem świadczy dynamika rozwoju forów internetowych i list dyskusyjnych. Trudno mi wskazać na konkretne badania, które opisywałyby ten fenomen. Widocznie, jest jeszcze wiele do zrobienia

IB: Bardzo interesuje mnie właśnie social cognition, distributed cognition. Do tego nawiązuje też moje następne pytanie:

Czy z perspektywy kognitywisktyki jest różnica między e-learningiem 1.0 a e-learningiem 2.0? Czy sieci społeczne zmieniają coś w na poziomie percepcji?

MG: Na początku krótko objaśnię dlaczego trudno wypowiadać się “z punktu widzenia kognitywistyki”. Otóż nauka ta nie ma jednolitego paradygmatu. 30 lat temu kognitywistyczne badania umysłu cechowało założenie  – mózg jako komputer, a umysł jako wykonywany na tym komputerze program. Badania z różnych dziedzin naukowych, szczególnie psychologii i filozofii umysłu, ukazały słabość takiego podejścia. Kognitywistykę należy więc traktować bardziej jako szerokie spektrum badań i badaczy skupionych wokół tematyki funkcji umysłu. Dlatego też często wykluczające się stwierdzenia reprezentują punkt widzenia kognitywistyki.

Mogę więc wyrazić swoje zdanie w oparciu o wiedzę, która składa się na szeroko pojęte nauki poznawcze.  Sądzę, że e-learning 2.0. jest pozytywnym zjawiskiem. Zagrożeniem jakie widzę jest tu jakość przekazywanej wiedzy. O tym jak pogodzić wiarygodność przekazu z zaangażowaniem internautów opowiem na przykładzie projektu student.pl, przy którym aktualnie pracuję. Rzecz polega na udostępnieniu kursu z pewnej dziedziny na kilku poziomach zaawansowania. Główna idea polega na tym, że ci, którzy wiedzą już więcej tzn. ukończyli pierwszy i drugi stopień, dzielą się swoją wiedzą z tymi, którzy dopiero rozpoczynają. Nie wymaga to żadnej szczególnej technologii, wystarczy forum i czat udostępnione w ramach platformy Moodle. Na efekty tego rozwiązania dopiero czekam, ponieważ projekt dopiero startuje.

IB: Co ma Pan na myśli mówiąc “efekty”? Jakie efekty będą przedmiotem badań w tym projekcie?

MG: Efektem będzie to, że kursanci będą chcieli angażować się coraz bardziej w kurs. Z jednej strony będą osiągać kolejne etapy, a z drugiej chętnie i rzetelnie wspierać tych, którzy są na wcześniejszych etapach. Rzetelność tego jak “starsi” wspierają młodszych będzie oceniana przez eksperta przygotowywującego kurs.

IB: Czy na osiągniecie tych efektów, np. zaangażowanie, wymianę i wzajemną pomoc między uczacymi się, mają wpływ jakieś czynniki, którymi zajumje się kognitywistyka?

MG: Tak, moim zadaniem jest właśnie zapewnić odpowiednią formę przekazu. Jednym ze sposobów jest odwołanie się do wiedzy, którą uczestnicy kursu mają “na wejściu”. Chodzi o to, aby używać tam gdzie to najbardziej potrzebne metafor i języka konkretu odwołujących się do codziennych doświadczeń i elementarnej wiedzy. Innym sposobem jest oddziaływanie na głębokość przetwarzania wiedzy. Bardzo często bowiem interakcja to tylko przeciąganie i klikanie. Nie trzeba znać badań psychologicznych, aby wiedzieć, że im lepiej opracujemy materiał, im bardziej się na nim skupimy, tym więcej w nas pozostanie. Środkiem do tego mogą być chociażby zadania polegające na napisaniu dłuższej wypowiedzi na forum czy hasła w słowniku.

IB: W jaki sposób diagnozuje Pan wiedze “na wejsciu” i podejmuje decyzję o tym, jaką metaforę, jaki zwrot językowy zastosować?

MG: Przyznam szczerze, że nie mam tu złotych zasad. Dla mnie punktem wyjścia jest zapewne znana Pani koncepcja metafor Georga Lakoffa, która dała podwaliny językoznawstwa kognitywnego oraz jej rozwinięcia. Lakoff twierdzi, że nasz system pojęciowy jest tak bogaty właśnie dzięki metaforze. Pojęcia abstrakcyjne biorą swój początek z naszych interakcji ze światem, z tego w jaki sposób się poruszamy itd. Stąd też diagnozowanie wiedzy wejściowej nie zawsze jest obowiązkowe, aby używać dobrych metafor. Pozwolę sobie przytoczyć pewną anegdotę o wybitnym fizyku R. Feymanie, którą słyszałem od swojego promotora. Otóż Feyman przysłuchiwał się kiedyś rozmowie dwóch matematyków zajmujących się bodajże topologią. Choć nie znał tematu pozwolił owym matematykom rozwiązać spór, który toczyli. Gdy zapytali go jak to zrobił powiedział, że gdy oni rozmawiali on wyobrażał sobie to co mówią jako wklęśniętą piłkę tenisową. Jest to dla mnie doskonały przykład tego, w jaki sposób metafora jest kluczem do zasobów naszego umysłu.

IB: To bardzo ciekawe zagadnienie: Metafory jako centrum międzyludzkiej komunikacji. Więcej na ten temat przeczytać można w książce “Metafory w naszym życiu”. Dziekuję za tę interesującą rozmowę!

Moje pytanie do czytelnikow: Jak sądzicie, w jakim kierunku powinny zmierzać badania kognitywistyczne, tak aby można było lepiej zrozumieć i zaprojektować procesy związane z sieciami społecznymi i osobistymi środowiskami nauczania się?

I found this video on Cool Infographics which is always worth looking at for interesting videos and data representations. It is an illustration of a presentation by Dan Pink created by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The video discusses research on what motivates people, and provides some interesting results.

Sometimes it it is hard to see anything stopping Facebook ruling the world. But a few years ago it was hard to see anyone ever challenging My Space. And some of us can still remember Friends Reunited. Now the tide may be beginning to change against Facebook. It is Facebook’s own financial greed and their willingness to run roughshod over privacy rights which is threatening their hold.

A new generation of entrepreneurs are emerging with a very different vision and different technologies.

A report in today’s New York Times explains: “A few months back, four geeky college students, living on pizza in a computer lab downtown on Mercer Street, decided to build a social network that wouldn’t force people to surrender their privacy to a big business.” They go onto say: “They have called their project Diaspora* and intend to distribute the software free, and to make the code openly available so that other programmers can build on it. As they describe it, the Diaspora* software will let users set up their own personal servers, called seeds, create their own hubs and fully control the information they share. Mr. Sofaer says that centralized networks like Facebook are not necessary. “In our real lives, we talk to each other,” he said. “We don’t need to hand our messages to a hub. What Facebook gives you as a user isn’t all that hard to do. All the little games, the little walls, the little chat, aren’t really rare things. The technology already exists.”

Meanwhile Facebook itself is showing some signs of recognising the danger.  Nick O’Neill on the All Facebook web site says: “Facing increasing pressure from the media and users, Facebook has called an all hands meeting tomorrow afternoon, at 4 PM Pacific, to discuss the company’s overall privacy strategy according to sources inside the company……..While it’s unknown what Facebook will announce during the meeting, it’s pretty obvious that changes will need to be made if Facebook is going to regain users’ trust. The most likely change will come in the form of a temporary removal of the “Instant Personalization” service, or at the least, a shift to “opt-in”, something many privacy advocates have been calling for.”

I am still stranded in Europe, waiting to return to the UK. If everything goes as planned I will touch British soil tomorrow. Meanwhile I have been working online. And if it weren’t for the fact that I had to postpone some rather important meetings, my absence in the office would have probably gone unnoticed. And [...]