I prepared the article to the ECTEL conference that based on the teachers’ training course conducted in the portfolio-based learning environment. But I withdrew it today. It is my last article of my Phd project and should contain the main message, but I was not pleased with the final result. I was not even happy with the idea that it will be conference paper and not journal one. So now I take some time to work with it.

I have passed all the courses in TLU and I have to finalize my last article. Then I should start writing the analytical part and conclusion of my Phd project. I was a bit confused if I should defend in Tallinn or in Turku. But after discussing with my supervisors I have decided to defend in Tallinn.

Then I have some other articles as well that should be finalized and responded to the reviews. IntelLEO-related activities should be presented and local project is waiting for my contribution.. I don’t want to think about it.

Tomorrow I have presentation at the conference of E-University of Estonia. There I introduce the theoretical learning and knowledge building model in teacher professional development.

I wanted to participate LAK12 course for two reasons. First the concept of learning analytics is gaining more and more importance in the context of (educational) research. Lot of people are talking about it and I just wanted to be sure what is it exactly in order to participate in discussions. But even more important is the fact that I should teach in next autumn the basics of learning analytics in Tallinn University master program “Educational technology” and I should expand my own knowledge before that.

LAK12 course defines learning analytics as “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the environments in which it occurs”.

When I’ll try to put in my educational technology context, it means that we analyze different learning patterns in learning environments (open learning environments that are usually blog-based courses and closed LMS like IVA or Moodle). Such analyses may illustrate if the current learning activities, learning environment and materials support learners’ learning process. That is not the only potential of learning analytics, sure.

I have wondered, what is the difference or what is the relationship between data-mining and learning analytics. I read from the reading material that The Educational Data Mining community has defined educational data mining as an emerging discipline, concerned with developing methods for exploring the unique types of data that come from educational settings, and using those methods to better understand students, and the settings which they learn in.” The implementation areas of educational data mining and learning analytics are similar. I have to still work with this thought as currently I can’t perceive the thorough difference.

I liked the idea that I read from this material, said by Donald Norris, president and founder of Strategic Initiatives, Inc:
“Online learning without embedded analytics is like a car without wheels,” says Norris, who has written many white papers on the subject. “Embedded analytics turns online learning into an engine for both scaling access and improving retention, persistence, and completion.” Online learning courses are my area and so far no element of analytics I have used. Sure, my courses are small and just about 10 students are participating so I am not sure how efficiently the learning analytics could be used there. That takes me to my second hesitation, what is the real practice that can be studied with learning analytics. On one hand I can analyze the community aspect – how communicates with whom and do students comment each other. Maybe I could study if the learning materials are considered important – how many clicks on materials, comments and ping-backs. I could study the presence of student – how often does she visit the learning environment at all and posts assignments. But what else..? I hope to find an answer to it.

Anyway, I formulated following research questions and goals:
Goals and research questions
The aim of my thesis is to develop the technologically supported LKB model in cross- organizational settings for teacher education in order to support teacher professional development. In order to accomplish the aim of my thesis, I plan to find answers for the following research questions:
1. How does the LKB activities support the development of self-directive competences of teachers and influences their motivation to develop themselves professionally?
2. How do the members of extended professional community of educators perceive that their knowledge influences and is influenced by the development of organizational knowledge?
3. What kind of technologically supported LKB methods and scenarios would be used by the extended community members of educators?
4. Which aspects influence the implementation of technologically supported LKB model in teacher education context in individual level?

Methodology
Research design
In order to accomplish the aim and to answer the research questions, I will rely mainly on design- based research elements. Wang and Hannafin (2005) have defined design-based research as methodology aimed to improve educational practices through systematic, flexible, and iterative review, analysis, design, development and implementation, based upon collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings and leading to design principles or theories. The study has follwing phases:
a) Identifying the problem and mapping the current situation in teacher education field in the context of using technology for supporting teachers’ knowledge building activities. Teachers from school, pre-service teachers, novice teachers, school supervisors and university lecturers will be interviewed in this process. This phase gives an input for research question 3 and 4;
b) Together with stakeholders from teacher education field, developed LKB model will be validated. Model will be presented as scenarios in different teacher education context and stakeholders analyze them together with researchers. Phase gives an input for question 3 and 4;
c) Technologically supported LKB model will be tested with teachers in two phases: early prototypes of services and full prototypes of services. Data will be collected by the semi-structured interviews, questionnaire and analysis of the users’ log-information. Phase gives an input for research questions 1, 2, 3, 4.
d) LKB model will be implemented longitudinally in e-portfolio system with the pre-service teachers in school practice context. Scenarios and methodology for portfolio-based school practice will be developed together with university school-practice unit and researchers. Data will be collected by the semi-structured questionnaire, analysis of reflections in weblog and semi- structured interview in the end of the trial. Trials take place in spring 2010, 2011, 2012 and into process school supervisors, pre-service teachers and university will be involved. This phase gives an input for research questions 1, 2, 3, 4.
e) In collaboration with teachers, application of e-portfolio functionality will be designed to Koolielu environment. Scenarios and workflows will be designed by the researcher and evaluated by the teachers. Data will be collected by the semi-structured interviews during the design-sessions. This phase gives an input for the research question 3.

Therefore my project has three methodological approaches. First I identify the problem and map the situation. Then with the design-based approach I’m developing together with stakeholders different scenarios and methodologies for interventions. The next approach involves different trials with teachers in different contexts like pre-service studies and accredidation, And finally my research tries to evaluate how does the theoretical model with technological application influences teacher’s professional development.

As the result of the doctoral thesis, I will provide a) theoretical LKB model for teacher training context; b) description of technology application that would support developed LKB model in teacher training context; c) implementation quidelines that would support the using of technology supported LKB model.
a) Development of theoretical LKB model (2009 – 2011):
i) Meta-analysis of the SECI model will be conducted in order to deepen the theoretical baseline of the research and to analyze what are the applications of SECI model. Article about it will be ready by the February 2012.
ii) Theoretical LKB model have been developed and validated with seven experts from teacher education field. Article “Implementing A Technology-Supported Model for Cross-Organisational Learning and Knowledge Building for Teachers” published by the European Journal of Teacher Education in winter 2012.
iii) heoretical LKB model validated in technology-supported accreditation context. Results presented at CSEDU11 and in ICWL11 conference
iv) Technology-supported LKB model in cross-organizational setting will be tested in Octo- ber 2011 -January 2012 with 20 Estonian teachers. The goal is to evaluate in what way the SECI phased related activity sequences are taking place in cross-organizational LKB model and how are different IntelLEO services supporting the activity sequences related with SECI phases. Article about the results will be ready by the spring 2012.
b) Description of technology application for supporting LKB model (2011-2013):
i) Aim is to study how implementing e-portfolio in teacher education context supports pro- fessional development. Longitudinal study with pre-service teachers has been conducted in spring 2010 and 2011 and another trial takes place in spring 2012. Some trials will be additionally designed for 2012. Article about trials will be ready by the autumn 2012.
c) Implementation guidelines of LKB model in technological settings (2011-2013):
i) Based on data of testing the technology-supported LKB model, I plan to analyze what in- fluences the implementation of the model in teacher education context. I would like to study through the motivational specter what is the need for training and by whom, what facilitation aspects are needed, what barriers might be faced. Article about implementa- tion process will be ready by the summer 2012

Sounds realistic But what is even more important – sounds interesting, I am fond of my research and current experiment that has not been very successful, is really important to me and I have strong ownership with it. Feedback is welcome.

Tundsin end sellel kursusel nagu sõitmas mäest üles – mäest alla. Kõigepealt olin ma elevil – nii enda, kursuse kui ka üliõpilaste pärast. Seejärel jõudsin ma arusaamale, et üliõpilased ei ole elevil, neile on see siiski kohustuslik õppetöö. Pisut valmistas mulle meelehärmi ka see, et mõned üliõpilased ei tulnud lõpuni minuga kaasa, nende praktikapäevikud sisaldasid vähest vajalikku. Kui meelehärmi-etapp mööda sai, kasvas jälle elevus, sest tajusin, kuidas paar üliõpilast hakkasid end haridustehnoloogina tundma ja sellena ka käituma. Vahepeal jäid sissekanded soiku ning aktiivselt oma tegevusi peegeldavaid üliõpilasi oli vähe. Seejärel aga tõusis huvi magistritööde ning praktika vahelise sose vastu ja see viis jälle emotsioonid üles. Ühesõnaga meeleolukas kursus.

Kindel on see, et oma ootuseid ma ei täitnud. Ma ei suutnud tekitada dialoogi üliõpilaste vahel, vaid üks üliõpilane hoidis silma peal teiste tegemistel, lisaks tuleb veel kaaslaste poolt partner-hinnangu andmine. Ma ei suutnud kaasata tagasisidestamise protsessi praktikakohapoolseid juhendajaid, kuigi ma korduvalt palusin seda. Tagasisidestamisesse polnud jooksvalt kaasatud ka eriti eksperte (va paaril korral), kuna sissekanded õppedisainist tulid suhteliselt kaootiliselt. Küll aga kaasan ma õppejõud tagasisidestamisse praktika lõpus, kui esitatakse aruanded. Ootus, et keegi ehk saab kasu magistritöö jaoks täitus osaliselt, sest mõned neist siiski teemad lõpuks registreerisid ja kes rohkem ning kes vähem asja siiski ettevõtsid. Ma ei oska hinnata, kas praktika tegevuste üle peegeldamine kuidagi mõjus tõhusamalt üliõpilastele, kuigi halvemaks see ilmselt ka midagi ei teinud. Lisaks ei oska ma hinnata, kas minu olemasolust oli neile kasu või kahju, sest eksperthinnaguid ma ei andnud, niisama lugesin neid ja küsisin juurde küsimusi, mis mind huvitasid.

Minu jaoks osutus kõige keerulisemaks muuta praktika efektiivseks nende jaoks, kes on aastaid sama tööd teinud, teevad seda suurepäraselt ning olid praktikal oma praeguses ametikohas. Järgmiseks korraks mõtlesime me rakendada eelpraktikat, mis tähendab, et ka kõige parem haridustehnoloog väljub korraks oma mugavustsoonist ja läheb vaatama teise asutusse, teise haridustehnoloogi juurde, millist tööd teeb ja kuidas teeb.

Teine asi oli tagasisidestamine. Algselt oli mõeldud, et lisaks minule annab tagasisidet ka magistritöö juhendaja ja praktika praktiline osa on seotud magistritööga. Esimesel seminaril sain ma üllatuse osaliseks, et keegi ei plaani kaitsta ja praktikat oma magistritööga siduda. See tähendas automaatselt, et magistritöö juhendaja kui kaastagasisidestaja kadus ära ja kuigi ma proovisin kaasata õppejõude tagasisidestamisse, siis reaalsuses oli see natuke keeruline sissekannete kaootilisuse tõttu. Seetõttu järgmine kord peaks tagasisidestamise jagama koordinaatori ja põhiõppejõudude vahel (siduma osad ained ja praktikaülesanded paremini) olgu see seotud magistritööga või mitte.

Kolmas asi oli praktikakoha poolsete juhendajate kaasamine, mis ebaõnnestus täielikult.

Mida ma ise saaksin paremini teha? Järgmine kord püüan kogu praktika teisti üles seada, et on eelpraktika ja põhipraktika ning süsteemselt läbi mõtlema ülesanded nii, et tagasisidestada saavad ka põhiõppejõud.

The beginning of the testing has been hard. More than months of activities and actually from the project aspect we have nothing done yet, because technology has let us down repeatedly. Quite difficult technological tools, concept of learning paths and public reflections have influenced the teachers’ motivation a lot. Several times I have spent my nights wondering how to motivate teachers to continue, because out of 23 teachers six have left. I have also thinking should we design second trial, but how to do it. It has been very stressful – on one hand scaffolding teachers and on the other hand keep testing the system, identifying the bugs and to constantly thinking shall I get something for my thesis or not.

Same time I’m conducting meta-study about SECI model for one doctoral compendium. I studied more than 60 papers about SECI model and only 19 of them used empirical testing in their studies, rest of them were conceptual papers. Most of these 19 studies used observations of workplace processes and questionnaires to study if the SECI processes take place in organization. That made me quite excited, because our study seems to be therefore quite innovative – we analyze the system (log-information) in order to analyze how much teachers create learning assets, learn from each other, socialize, collaboratively work together etc.

And few days ago I discovered that 4-5 one out of my 17 teachers have opened up – they have hit the point and all SECI phases have started to occur and it has become exciting for them. So, from the project aspect, I don’t have anything positive to say yet, we have not started to use right technologies yet. But from my thesis aspect, I feel like I won the prize – if to scaffold them, facilitate, explain, direct, support – then finally it starts working and they spontaneously performed the actions that I even did not dare to hope. Good!

But yesterday it seemed to me that my colleagues consider PLE (personal learning environment) and e-portfolio as something completely different. For the e-portfolio, I use the definition provided by the Helen Barrett: e-portfolio is an electronic collection of evidences that shows one’s learning journey over time and which can relate to specific academic fields or one’s lifelong learning. Learning journey can be seen as one’s formal and informal learning over period of time, it includes the developed or gathered resources, social networks and evidences of one’s competencies. These evidences may include written documents, photos, videos, reports on research projects, observations by mentors and peers, and self-reflections on one’s own professional activities. Barrett emphasizes the key aspect of an e-portfolio: reflection on the collected evidences, such as why it was chosen and what one learned from the process of developing e-portfolio.
And the connection between the e-portfolio and PLE has been done by the Attwell quite well who sees e-portfolio as the DNA of the PLE. And I have defined PLE for myself based on Fiedler & Pata who defined PLE as concept that entails all the instruments, materials and human resources that an individual is aware of and has access to in the context of an educational project at a given point in time..
So based on that – PLE is a concept and e-portfolio is like an implementation of it.

My colleague said yesterday that important, almost like compulsory part of e-portfolio is the possibility to connect the content of e-portfolio with the competences. Yes, I agree with that. In the context of my thesis and teacher training we have strong emphasize on competence development in e-portfolio. But I also think that if competences are missing in my e-portfolio, that does not mean that my e-portfolio is somehow less good. Workplace learning does not include competences in many areas, but it does not mean that workers should not document their development in e-portfolio and provide evidences to that. Evidences is important part of e-portfolio from my aspect. It is not just blogging that I have reached to that point by now and I did well, but I have to add some evidences as well. It is important when I apply for scholarship or other position at work – I present my dynamically up-dated e-portfolio with reflections and evidences.

Another argument of my colleague was that e-portfolio should include feedback from mentor. I also agree that it would be nice to have always the feedback from someone, but actually I update my portfolio for myself. I can’t expect that I have always readers and in case I have them, I can’t expect that they have always something to tell me. I would appreciate if my supervisor always comments me here, but even more satisfaction would be the case if some stranger or unexpected visitor of my blog would like to discuss something with me. So, I think that feedback is nice part of the e-portfolio, but generally I’ll do it myself and must-be comments would not make me feel better, rather spontaneous comments would be interesting.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that although we are one very well-working reserach group and we have managed to connect our individual expert areas to one whole. But still there seems to be some prejudices or misunderstandings. It would be probably important to combine our expert areas in articles with those colleagues that we usually don’t work together and try to understand each other more.

Update
We continued our little discussion after having comments here. And something that Hans said, made me quite worried. He compared the discussion around the e-portfolio with the discussion around learning objects – one hand every piece of material could be considered as learning object. On the other hand the quality becomes poor and transferring learning objects to repositories becomes impossible, therefore we talk about metadata etc of learning objects. And he asked, maybe the standards of e-portfolio should be therefore set in order to keep the quality and importing the e-portfolio from one system to other becomes easier. I see the point actually, although I don’t like the idea that my e-portfolio should be developed with the specific e-portfolio software.

It is really good to have such discussions, it was not arguing, it was friendly discussion which led me to the understanding that I should study more e-portfolio

Üks kursus, praktiline teadusloome, oli mul veebipõhises vormis. Lugesin läbi õppematerjalid ning esitasin iseseisvad ülesanded. Tundub, et sellest piisab. Ma sain kaaslastelt tagasisidet, et tegemist on kursusega, mida tasuks võtta I kursuse jooksul, hiljem pole sellest nii suurt kasu. Ilmselt on neil õigus, samas pean kahetsusega tunnistama, et doktorandina olin ma kasutanud väga vähe erinevaid teaduslikke andmebaase oma töös, liigagi vähe. Praktiline töö, mis keskendus erinevate andmebaaside kasutamisele haris mind kindlasti, ma ei kujutanud isegi ette, et sellised võimalused on. Karta on, et ma võib olla lähenesin tööle pisut pealiskaudselt, kuna muus osas oli kõik ju lihtne ning ma ei saa salata, et sellest ainete blokist, kuhu aine kuulus, oli mul vaja mingi kursus võtta.

Tunduvalt rohkem kõnetasid mind kaks järgmist kursust. Ühe neist valisin, et teha endale väljakutse – osaleda kursusel, mis on ülesehitatud ebatraditsiooniliselt ning rühmatööde peale ning teise sellepärast, et see on mulle intellektuaalselt täielik eneseületamine.

Kursus kõrgkoolididaktika tekitas minus vastakaid tundeid ja segadust ja ma ei osanud seda esimese kahe kontakttunni jooksul sõnastada, miks see nii oli. Ausalt öeldes ei oska ka praegugi, aga see segadus on kadunud. Kuna kursus oli nii teistsugune – kasutatud oli väga palju erinevaid õppemeetodeid, kursusel oli kaks õppejõudu, palju oli rühmatööd ja rääkimist, analüüsimist ja peegeldamist. Kõik see, mida ma üldjuhul kardan ja pelgan ja võimalusel jätaks vahele. Kuna kursusel loodi ülimalt hästi rühmatunne ning lisaks olen ma osade kaaslastega ka ühes teises loengus koos, kadus mul hämmastavalt kiiresti hirm eksida ja olla rumal. Samas tundsin pikka aega survet pingutada, et näida rühmatöös aktiivne, sest kui ma ei räägi ja ei tee, siis teised äkki arvavad, et ma olen passiivne. Mitte, et ma kardan.

Teisalt kõnetas see kursus mind selles võtmes, et ma olen nii öelda tagant uksest sisse tulnud õppejõud, isehakanu, kelle kogemused on suhteliselt väikesed ning igasugused tõlgendused põhinevad kogemusel. Sel kursusel kogetu, räägitu ja kuuldu tõttu sain ma nagu teoreetilise aluse oma olukordadele. Ma sain täiesti selgelt aru, millised vead ma olen juba teinud (ja teist korda sel sügisel) oma juhendatavatega – meie kokkulepped nii töö protsessi, kvaliteedi, tähtaegade jms on täiesti tegemata, mis võib mind kevadel viia samasse olukorda, kus olime sel kevadel, et juhendaja on nördinud ja juhendatatav samuti, sest juhendaja ootas palju, aga juhendataval polnud üldse plaani esmaklassiline töö esitada. See on vaid üks näide sellest, et kui me tihti kipume mõtlema, et ma tean juba kõike ja ma õpin kogemusest ja nii edasi, siis tegelikult see nii ei ole. See kursus ei jookse mööda külge maha ka kõige kogenenumal, sest see paneb sind mõtlema oma töö peale, oma õppimise peale, oma õpetamise peale. Minu uurimisrühm ka räägib õppimisest ja teab kõiki teoreetilisi lähtekohti sellele, aga kas keegi ka vahel ka oma õppimise peale mõtleb metakognitiivselt?

Sama suure väljakutse esitas mulle haridusfilosoofia. See kursus on selgelt minu intellektuaalsele tasemele liig. Mul oli keskkoolis natuke filosoofiat, kuid üldiselt on mul lünk, eriti mis puudutab kasvatusteaduste filosoofiat. Ning kuigi mul oli võimalus mõni teine aine ka valida, tundsin ma, et ma vean alt, kui ma neist mugavusainetest ei loobu. Kursusel oli kaks väga rasket ülesannet minu jaoks. Esimene, kui ma pidin sõnastama, mis on minu doktoritöö filosoofiline alus…Ma ei tea, kas ma vastasin õigesti või valesti ja ma olen võimeline seda siia avalikku veebiruumi kirja panema.
Teine on artikkel minu doktoritöö teemal mingil filosoofilisel küsimusel. Õppejõu soovitusel kirjutan ma tehnoloogia vastasseisust ja kuivõrd põhjendatud see on. Kuna õpetajad minu doktoritöö raames on natuke tehnoloogia vastu ja seda on käsitlenud näiteks ka Heiddeger, siis ma peaksin 3-4 lk mahus seda küsimust arutama. See on raudselt minu doktoriõpingute kõige raskem asi ja irooniliselt on see mu doktoriõpingute viimane kohustuslik aine. Kiidan end, et ma seda kurusust 1.-2. kursusel ei võtnud, kuna siis ma poleks osanud seda üldse oma doktoritöö konteksti viia.

Kursusel on küll vaid kaks kontaktkohtumist, kuid ideaalis toimub kümne nädala vältel intensiivne suhtlus ja töö e-õppe toel. Esimene kohtumine oli ära ja see oli minu silmis väga positiivne. Ma nö õppisin endale kõik üliõpilased selgeks – kes nad on ja mis ootustega nad praktikale lähevad. See annab mulle ka parema aluse, kui ma nende praktikapäevikuid loen jooksvalt, kuna nad on mul selgelt silme ees.

Sel nädalal sõnastavad üliõpilased oma praktika eesmärgid ning mis ootused neil praktikale on. Seoses sellega, et mulle see kursus, need osalejad ja meie väike kogukond korda läheb, teen ma sama:

- eelkõige ootan ma, et üliõpilased tõesti praktika jooksul õpivad, arendavad oma reflektiivse õppimise oskusi ning praktikast on neile kasu nii oma arengu jaoks üldiselt kui ka magistritöö jaoks;
- veel ootan ma, et kursuse raames leiaks aset dialoog üliõpilaste vahel ja minu ning üliõpilaste vahel;
- ma loodan, kuigi mõistan, et see on keerulisem, et vestluses osaleksid ka praktikajuhendajad praktikakohast:
- ma olen lubanud üliõpilastele, et lisaks minule, hakkab ülikooli poolt aegajalt tagasisidet andma neile ka nö ekspert, ehk keegi, kes on pädev hindama seda tegevust, mida üliõpilane praktika raames läbi viib.
- ma loodan, et ma õppejõuna oskan olla üliõpilastele toetav ning suunav. Selleks jälgin ma hoolega nende veebipõhiseid praktikapäevikuid ja lisaks jooksvale tagasisidele ning küsimustele, loodan ma märgata, kui keegi on teelt eksinud ning ta tagasi rajale aidata.

This week I had lecture with mainly the first year IT-students and they were supposed the create weblog for themselves where to present all the individual assignments. One of them already had weblog, actually five of them, different weblog for each course that he was attending. I asked why do you have five different weblogs, isn’t it confusing? He said that it helps to organize things, he knows better where is the needed information, learning materials, links and feedback from facilitator. It suits better for him if he does not have to look from one weblog years back to find one blogpost. I suggested to use categories, different category to different course, but he did not agree. Well, fine.

I also had seminar with the second year master students of educational technology. They are entering to practice now and should document their practice process in their weblogs. They have used in several different courses weblogs and therefore I assumed they all have it. And again I discovered that many of them are using different weblogs for different courses and for the practice, they also tend to create new one.

Why is it so? Am I only facilitator who encourages them to use the same weblog throughout the studies? It is not just a suggestion, but I have tried it out myself and years later you do not have enough organization and systematic approach to your development..

Anyway, extremely busy fall-semester has started and I should make some plans. First I will focus on my plans for the summer:
- My first scientific article for the journal – European Journal of Teacher Education – was accepted last week. So, I started it in November 2009, presented it to EJTE this March and now it is accpeted. Nice!
- PLE chapter – no news. I am starting to lose hope that it will be published at all.
- I did not started preparing any new articles, but we redesigned the article about induction year and LKB model and presented it to journal again, now waiting for the result
- I contributed quite lot to the IntelLEO – to D5.2, D4.2 and started preparing the testing phase.
- I prepared for my courses that i will teach this autumn
- I started analyzing epoabi data

And this autumn I:

- plan to pass courses like Philosophy of Education (4 ECTS), Learning and Teaching Higher Education (6 ECTS), Practice of Research is Social Sciences (6 ECTS). After passing these courses, my formal studies in TLU are completed, only presentation in seminar once a year should be done. Excellent.
- will be teaching course for bachelor students as co-teacher about personal learning environment and e-portfolio. But I have also with master students of educational technology practice to conduct. My responsibility is to design and the course, coordinate the practice at workplace, read and provide feedback to the reflection of each week, evaluate the assignments and conduct the practice seminar.
- will conduct data collection phase of my studies. October-November 20 teachers will use the IntelLEO technologies in the accreditation context and that trial will give me hopefully needed data
- in spring I hope to prepare to articles based on the collected data
- epoabi data analysis and preparation of development should be started this autumn

I hope this is enough, seems like too much anyway.