Secure browser – Globus


More info here

Projection activism – Dislife

Dynamic Identity workshop modules

SESSION 1 1.1 5’ Instructors welcome all
1.2 10’ Verbal self-presentation
1.3 30’ Constructing self-presentation 75’ 1.6 Recording of individual participants on cam (1)
1.4 20’ Selfies as self-presentation
1.5 15’ Adults and self-presentation
SESSION 2 2.1 25’ Profiling theory
2.2 15’ Experience profiling
2.3 15’ Discussion
2.4 35’ Elements of film language grammar
SESSION 3 3.1 45’ Confrontation in AR 80’ 3.3 Recording of individual participants on cam (2)
3.2 45’ New technologies
SESSION 4 4.1 30’ Self-presentation and profiling
4.2 10’ Intro on the IDentifEYE game
4.3 15’ Playing the game (on profiling)
4.4 35’ Discussion
SESSION 5 5.1 70’ Analysis of the film task results
5.2 10’ Questionnaire
5.3 10’ Thanking and certificates

Dynamic Identity workshop – Lessons Learned & Best Practices

WORKSHOP # LESSONS LEARNED BEST PRACTICES
1 – NL – Two consecutive workshop sessions is the maximum amount. We experienced that the participants got very restless during a third workshop at a row;

– It appeared that Friday afternoon is not a good moment for the workshop sessions – for the participants it was hard to concentrate on the workshop at that point of the week;

– There were not enough “to do” activities in the workshop – especially the combination of theory and discussion modules is too much sitting and listening for this age group. This was written down by participants on the questionnaire and was mentioned frankly during the workshop. Improvised drawing tasks for the last pilots groups added to the modules 1.4 and 4.4 were well received;

– The concept of “identity” as role playing (Goffman) was not understood as was shown in the questionnaire results – a first interpretation is that it collides with different existing pre-conceptions. It was decided to replace the term “identity” with the term “self-presentation”;

– Teachers felt uncomfortable with group dynamics coming out – those present concluded that the workshop didactics were too hard for young teachers while for older teachers the topic is too alien. The option to involve parents was seriously considered by the school MT. An extensive didactics section is needed for teachers;

– The theoretical modules are too much alike – they need to be adjusted to flow better in the sessions;

– The refusal by some to be filmed – see BP – highlighted the need to stress the recording of the participants during the recruitment of participants for the workshop;

– The BP that resulted from the refusal by some to be recorded provided the insight that the legitimation for modules 1.6, 3.1, 3.3 and 5.1 needs to be described in the didactics sections and the individual modules sections;

– All participants indicated in the questionnaire in 5.1 that they did not learn anything in the workshop when it comes to being recorded. That was odd because no participant repeated their first recording results (module 1.6) in the second recording session (module 3.3), all had an opinion about which of the two videos was better and all had an extensive answer to the question what they did different the second time (both questionnaire 5.2 questions. It was decided to await the results of the following pilots;

– The participants experienced challenges memorizing the various shot sizes in module 2.4. It was decided to add a worksheet to this module to support the memorizing of the shot sizes;

– The workshop didactics appeared to work: students were able to concentrate for more than their normal maximum of 20 minutes – this was a big surprise for the teachers present;

– The workshop didactics appeared to work: students were keen to understand even purely academic topics like Simpson’ paradox – the teachers present were amazed;

– Group dynamics came out to the open – tensions in the class room underneath – and could be addressed by means of the D-ID theory modules on identity after which the three classes solved many issues themselves – teachers got a scare because of this – see LL column;

– Not all wanted to be recorded in module 3.3; the discussion about this triggered deep reflections and ethical decisions among many participants;

– Those who were recorded (90 out of 96) were on the average scared before recording but satisfied to very satisfied (according to their answers in the questionnaire) with the recording sessions;

– When videos were shown in breaks and after the workshop many participants lingered on – thus more video needs to be incorporated in the workshop;

– When so many workshop sessions are organized consequently, three instructors are needed to keep the focus;

– Profiling was new to almost all participants – the profiling modules created a stir;

– The profiling modules caused an effect that was not foreseen – participants started to treat the instructor as their friend and companion to make sense of the Internet. Participants had lost their usual youthful cockiness hat they know technology and adults do not and approached the teacher as educator to empower them;

– The game (module 4.3) was well received by the participants in the younger age group;

– Module 1.2 appeared to be the ideal introduction to module 1.3. Patterns that appeared in all pilots could be explained as roles emerging;

2 – PL – The workshop didactics gave the wrong signal – half of the participants did not return for session two after session one because they interpreted the didactics as a license to be absent. This caused quite a stir at the class teacher and the school principal. They organized an intervention session. Before that almost all participants reflected on their behaviour at their class Facebook group and concluded that they were in the wrong and wanted apologize. They understood themselves – as they said it later on – that they had been treated with respect and dignity for the first time at school and had mistaken that for a permission to be absent. They had taken revenge on the school but had chosen the wrong excuse. They bought flowers and chocolate for the instructors to make up but nearly reversed their opinion during the school intervention. Nevertheless, a girl representing the participants handed over the flowers and chocolate to the instructors while most participants looked away with tears in their eyes. The result was a delicate discussion on freedom and responsibility;

– The adjustments to the theoretical modules need more fine-tuning. There were still too many repetitions;

– The current game is too childish for student in age group 15-18. A new game is needed for this age group;

– Again all participants indicated in the questionnaire in 5.1 that they did not learn anything in the workshop when it comes to being recorded;

– The workshop didactics triggered deep reflections on school didactics – see LL;

– The new video module on new technology was heralded with applause. One girl commented that the upcoming tech developments made her anxious. She stated: “I don’t know if I want my children to live in a world like this.” When confronted with the statement that this is exactly how many adults think about the current situation, she and many other participants were reflective for minutes;

– The sessions in which participants are to see their recordings (3.1 and 5.1) caused a problem for a Muslim boy participating for religious reasons. The compromise that he would see his recordings in the break – with or without the instructors (he chose with) was readily accepted;

– The worksheet for module 2.4 was introduced. Participants could easier memorize the shot sizes;

3 – PL – Teachers felt very uncertain about implementing the technical modules – a thorough manual is needed taking them through the tech requirements step-by-step;
4 – GR – Teachers were not selected before. As a result they first needed to be convinced of the use of teaching on online identities and profiling. Parents present explained later that many are anxious about keeping their position as teacher in the crisis and that innovative projects mean taking a risk – a risk that could lead to getting fired. Thus only motivated teachers should be recruited;

– Recording is a sensitive subject in Greek schools. Ministerial consent appeared to be needed to record – especially for externals like the Polish and Dutch instructor present;

5 – GR – It was impossible to establish the impact of the workshop since participants left the workshop and joined the workshop seemingly at random. The workshop appeared too strictly constructed and the internal dependencies too great to improvise. The conclusion is that the workshop needs to be meticulously planned; – The participants did not know about profiling and were impressed – the theory module 2.1 and 2.2 worked;

– The module (1.5) in which participants were asked to whom they turn in case of an online good or bad experience triggered a long and lively discussion – especially since parents were present. It seems a good practice to have adults (parents, teachers) present during this module because the setting is different – both groups (participants and adults) are treated on a par because of the workshop didactics;

6 – PL – The recording module 1.6 revealed anxiety at an individual participant. The anxiety did not stem from the module – nevertheless, the module triggered the anxiety. The recording instructor should thus be ready to react to anxious participants and should have a back-up by professionals available in case of a worst case scenario;

– The new video module on new technologies was received again with applause but also caused anxiety – this is something instructors should take into account;

– The introductions to self-presentation (1.3) and profiling (2.1) are too abrupt for the age group. It might be better to reverse the following order of these modules with the modules following up on them, so 1.4 as an introduction to 1.3 and 2.2 as an introduction to 2.1;

– All participants indicated in the questionnaire in 5.1 that they did not learn anything in the workshop when it comes to being recorded;

– The workshop didactics work: students opened up quickly and – despite the lack of hierarchy – were very disciplined;

– Modules 1.4 and 4.4 were extended with a drawing tasks that were well received. Still, the drawing task for 1.4: draw your best selfie was judged by the instructors to be open for improvement;

7 – PL – Self-reporting by the participants was seen as a too weak instrument to measure workshop effectiveness – additional instruments are deemed necessary;
8 – GR – Some teachers seemed uncomfortable about the didactics. They did not want to be actively involved in the workshop but kept aloof and observed. It was concluded that only teachers who subscribe to workshop didactics should be recruited; – Even though an interpreter was present to support the instructor the workshop didactics were so effective that many participants started opening up very soon to the instructor. Many expressed their experiences online and were not shy to reflect in the group or show their emotions;

– The new version of the game for this age group was well-received;

– The updated theory modules (1.3, 2.1, 4.1) could easily be compressed and still provided a full introduction;

9 – GR – Many aspects of profiling were already known to many participants. It appeared that the teacher had already started talking with her students on the subject. Instructors should know the class level of experience and knowledge before the workshop to adjust the workshop material to that level; – Even though an interpreter was present to support the instructor the workshop didactics were so effective that many participants started opening up very soon to the instructor. Many expressed their experiences online and were not shy to reflect in the group or show their emotions;

– The modules 1.3 and 1.4 were also implemented in reverse order – resulting in a more lively interest in the subject of self-presentation. Module 1.2 was still used as an introduction to how self-presentations emerge to then switch quickly to module 1.4 and then return to self-presentations in module 1.3;

– The modules 2.1 and 2.2 were implemented for the younger age group in reverse order – resulting in a more lively interest in the subject of profiling;

10 – GR – Snow falling in Athens is not facilitating a greater concentration by participants; – Even though an interpreter was present to support the instructor the workshop didactics were so effective that many participants started opening up very soon to the instructor. Many expressed their experiences online and were not shy to reflect in the group or show their emotions;

– The new version of the game for this age group was well-received;

11 – NL – The video module on new technologies again caused anxiety even though the instructors tried to mellow down the effect of the module by stating that these are just possibilities. The module must be handled with even more care for this age group;

– The workshop didactics do not suit every teacher. One teacher who was recording (modules 1.6 and 3.3) reported that he did not like the distance with the students during the first recording. He said he was too friendly for that. This triggered an intense discussion with other teachers on didactics, motivations and ethics. Again the subject of teacher recruitment came to the forefront;

– All participants indicated in the questionnaire in 5.1 that they did not learn anything in the workshop when it comes to being recorded. It was concluded that the fact that they do not learn is a youngster dogma;

– The concept of self-presentation as playing roles was again not accepted by participants – even though the concept “identity” was not mentioned. It was concluded that the denial by youngsters that they play roles is a youngster dogma;

– The refusal to be recorded by a few participants during module 3.3 and to be shown in module 3.1 led to a discussion among the other participants whether those who refused should be allowed to be present during module 3.1 in which the others would feel vulnerable because their recordings would be shown. It was decided by vote that those who refused should not be present. This triggered the need for an alternative program for those who refused. A teacher present volunteered to provide an alternative program: as math teacher she would practice math with those who refused. This led to a reversal of decision among some who refused. Thus, it is important to have an alternative for the workshop in place for sessions three to five;

– Diagnostic questions were implemented. In an earlier stage than before it became clear what parts of the transfer of cognitive knowledge were successful. It also appeared that students gladly explain their colleagues about what they understand;

– The presence of multiple teachers and a parent in the workshop was very productive. Since they were on a par in the workshop because of the workshop didactics new and unexpected discussions took place between students and teachers on their respective roles and the potential causes of conflict between them. Both students and teachers used the opportunity to ask questions they could not ask in the normal class setting like: “How do you see me as a teacher?”, “How would you deal with a student like you?” and “Why are you always so angry as a teacher?”;

– The didactics caused one teacher to complain – see LL – but also caused profound reflections on the profession of being a teacher;

– The updated theory modules (1.3, 2.1, 4.1) functioned very well, especially in combination with the reversed order of 1.3 and 1.4 and 2.1 and 2.2;

– The new drawing task (1.4): draw your worst selfie revealed a lot of unexpected images by the participants – almost half of them drew themselves in front of the “Dutch”  airplane that crashed in the Ukraine (MH17) or in front of IS executions. This triggered a lot of reflection among the instructors. Also the fact that two boys drew themselves as Hitler but then changed their drawings because they anticipated school sanctions and half of the participants destroying their drawings immediately after the module triggered reflection;

– A parent acted a co-instructor. This worked out very well: he had less troubles implementing the workshop didactics than many teachers. The parent is planning to continue implementing the workshop – on a more commercial base;

– Again a few students refused to be recorded in module 3.3 and shown in module 3.1 – see LL. The prepared written out motivation underlying modules 1.6, 3.1, 3.3 and 5.1 helped structure the discussion;

12 – NL To do To do
13 – PL – There is a difference in status between international instructors leading the workshops and teachers from a school leading them – in one school parents revolted against the workshop since teachers temporarily interrupted their curriculum to implement the workshops and parents worried about exams coming up. When parents started worrying school MT decided to withdraw one teacher as workshop instructor – which the instructor refused. At the end the teacher instructor finished the workshops after which a meeting followed between project partners and parents;

– A conclusive meeting with all participants had different groups present: school MTs, teachers and students. Just as D-ID theory on identity would predict: a mixing of audiences led to problems. Two girls – students – gave their honest opinion about the workshop (in their roles of workshop participants) and compared them favourably to the effects of normal school didactics (more cooperation, more concentration, less noisy). This offended their MT and teacher representatives who were present which led to sanctions – that were lifted after project partner intervention. The role of workshop participant had clashed on the role of school ambassador

– One teacher refused to implement the workshop didactics and stuck to her regular didactics. According to an observer present students did not open up but behaved timid and absent-minded. This illustrated the importance of the workshop didactics and the importance of instructor recruitment;

– A meeting between project partners and parents seems necessary. In the Netherlands meetings had taken place before the workshop. The meetings had primed the parents positively, even to the extent that parents started putting pressure on the school MT to introduce the workshop not just in the 1st year for all but also in the 4th. The school MT resisted but is still under pressure. In Greece parents were project partner. In Poland a parent meeting intervention was organized. After a tense first 15 minutes parents started supporting the project and started putting pressure on the school tom make the workshop obligatory for all students;

– In an intervention following on school sanctions for two students – see LL – D-ID theory was used to explain students what had happened (roles colliding, audiences mixing). Students appreciated that enormously;

– In the same intervention also another problem was addressed: a student had published a Facebook picture of a teacher in an unfavourable way on Facebook. This conflict ended in punishment within the school frame (hierarchical). In a short discussion with the pilot instructors the boy understood he had hurt his teacher (as a person not as an untouchable hierarchical figure) and concluded at once himself that he wanted to apologize. This is another indication of the strength of the project didactics;

– Diagnostic questions were added to the evaluation suite. Teachers were satisfied with the instrument they stated during the verbal evaluation;

– The extensive didactics section and the tech introductions were a great help for teachers according to them. Nevertheless they requested even more extended documents;

– The workshop didactics changed at least temporarily the relationship between teachers and their students according to teachers. They reported more trust and more discipline in their class rooms;

Bill Nye the science guy uses emoji to explain holograms

Emoji and slang as Internet semantics

Thomas Dimson writes: “Emoji usage is shifting the people’s vocabulary on Instagram and becoming an important means of expression: their use is anti-correlated with internet slang like “lol” and “xoxo.” By observing words and emoji together we were able to discern representations of both. These representations can help us better understand their semantics and find distinctive characteristics of similar symbols.”

Google profiling

Jeff Gould writes: “Gmail can sort users not just into a few thousand demographic and interest categories, but into literally millions of distinct “buckets”. A “bucket” is just a cluster of users, however small, who share some feature in common that might interest advertisers.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers