1. The whole-day experience, while fatiguing (at least for me), was the only way to go about a workshop as ambitious as this.
2. In fact, it could have easily gone two or three days (and would have been a stronger, more memorable experience for it).
3. The participants were both energetic and patient–the latter was important as we dealt with technical issues and the fact that teaching this territory was completely new to us.
4. Though I’d felt we’d been pretty thorough in mapping out the sessions, we could have spent several more hours planning and organizing the workshop for better results.
5. My instinct was to run a pilot segment as an on-campus workshop at UVU as a means of preparing. I didn’t do this, however, and in reflection am sure doing so would have eliminated the few problems I did experience.
6. My concept of “a PLE” has changed. I still think it’s definable, but recognize it to be more like an ever-adjusting, tool-assisted network of individualized processes than an “environment”.
7. “Environment” is easier to say, though perhaps it too strongly implies a monolithic managed system.
8. A well-considered and refined PLE is, so far, the best way for individuals to manage the indomitable mass of information and interactions that are now available.
9. D’Arcy Norman said, “‘PLE’ is a verb, not a noun … an action, not a thing.” I think it’s both: a PLE is a conglomeration of things constantly acted upon. (Someone remind me where I’ve heard this before).
10. Though initially informal, a modular, conglomerated PLE eventually becomes more formal as the individual builds habits and reinforces processes along branches as s/he moves towards “learning/achievement” goals.
11. As Chris spoke in the introduction, I sketched out the following as one concept of how the “interactions” part of my PLE work to send out signals while receiving new signals or feedback:

I know this very active practice rubbed off on me, from my willingness to do car repairs, to the palpable responsibility of doing house fixes myself, to doing any sort of grunt tasks on all sorts of projects at work. But I worked on the most memorable DIY projects as an undergrad in college: a self-published collection of poetry by amateur writers from my region in Utah. The project took about a year, but I ended up with an amusing collection of poems with audio recordings featuring the writers themselves that I called “Speak Black Spots”.

As I reflect on this project, my thoughts steer me to consider my motivations for DIY–with things like car repairs and house work I admit it’s largely been a matter of finance; with other things my DIY attitude is often born of a “If you want something done right…” mentality–execution of ideas, to me, is sometimes too precious to hand off to someone else; with “Speak Black Spots” my motivation may have been altogether different: I believed that what I wanted to do had no place in the traditional publishing outlets, and DIY would let me provide freedom of expression, creative control over the product, and immediacy. At the time I thought I was very punk, in fact too punk for punk. The end result was nothing famous or exemplary, but looking back at the last decade I realize this project predicted the attraction and power that self-publishing on the Web would hold for me.

So this all goes far afield of Jennifer’s questions (the most important one, I think, “If we speak and don’t do, who will?”), so let me refocus on the idea that DIY happens for good reasons, one of those being because the institutions or traditional processes don’t always serve the users. I think the sluggishness and bureaucracy of these institutions is born of cautiousness and self-protection–arguably acceptable reasoning when taxpayer/investor dollars and learning outcomes are at stake (this is essentially the conservative point of view which reacts against what may appear to be knee-jerk demands for “change”), but this reality also ensures that there will always be a place for–no, a need for DIY.

We’ve tried to build the idea of engagement, community, and persistence into TTIX 2008 through integration of Web 2.0 technology and conference structuring; backchanneling is just one piece of our effort to make TTIX a better conference, echoing the thoughts and ideas of folks such as Henrik Ahlen and Steve Hargadon. As success requires active participation by the community, I have to cross my fingers at this point and hope it “works”.