Literatuuroverzicht Reflectie - ‘Leren en veranderen’ (Bolhuis, 2009)

Dit boek gaat over hoe leren bij volwassenen in zijn  algemeenheid werkt, maar het bevat ook een hoofdstuk over reflecteren in het (hoger) onderwijs. Hieruit zijn de volgende fragmenten interessant voor dit onderzoek:

“Docenten die hun cursisten of studenten willen leren om kritisch reflectief te zijn, doen er goed aan om allereerst zelf het goede voorbeeld te geven. Daarbij kan de docent af en toe expliciteren waarom het belangrijk is om kritisch na te denken over het eigen handelen en de beroepspraktijk. “ (pag. 212)

Hier valt voor de opleiding een winst te behalen, zeker als het gaat om het motiveren van studenten om kritisch te reflecteren. Wij vragen bijvoorbeeld de studenten om aan het einde van een onderwijseenheid een reflectieverslag in te leveren, een tekstueel document dus. Dit terwijl we weten dat het onder woorden brengen van een reflectieproces best een uitdaging is voor de student, zeker voor de minder talige student. Uiteindelijk gaat het echter niet om het verslag, maar of een student kan laten zien wat hij geleerd heeft, en hoe hij dat heeft aangepakt. De opleiding zou er voor kunnen kiezen om ook andere vormen van reflectie te laten zien. Zet bijvoorbeeld mobile learning als middel voor reflectie (alhoewel dit onderzoek laat zien dat de tijd er misschien nog niet rijp voor is), of laat studenten hun leerproces bijvoorbeeld uitleggen via een zelfgemaakte film.

“Opleidingen vragen studenten vaak om individueel kritisch te (leren) reflecteren, door bijvoorbeeld opdrachten die schriftelijk moeten worden ingediend. Schrijven kan dwingen tot nadenken en tot het onder woorden brengen van eigen reflectie, maar het kan er ook toe leiden dat het een taak wordt die moet worden afgemaakt” (pag. 213)

Zie ook mijn bovenstaande toelichting. Mijn ervaring is dat onze studenten hun reflectieverslag pas schrijven op het laatst, als zij alle producten voor hun portfolio al klaar hebben. Zij geven soms zelf onomwonden aan dat het echt iets dat ze doen omdat de opleiding het verplicht stelt. Dat gegeven is eigenlijk de aanleiding geweest voor dit hele project; als je studenten iets laat gebruiken in hun reflectieproces dat zij als iets leuks en persoonlijks ervaren, zoals een mobiele telefoon, zouden zij dan niet meer aan de slag gaan met het reflecteren?

“Goed leren reflecteren kan niet zonder sociale interactie. Zeker zo belangrijk zijn dus gesprekken, waarin kritische reflectie wordt beoefend tussen studenten en tussen student en docent.” (pag.213)

Hier ligt een verbeterpunt voor dit onderzoek. In het experiment heeft de controlegroep ervaringen geplaatst op hun moblog met hun mobiel, maar het sociale aspect van de moblog (bijv. reacties plaatsen op berichten) is niet verder onderzocht, terwijl moblogs zich hier wel goed voor lenen (zie ook het stuk van Wopereis – FT).

5. Conclusions and discussion

In this part, conclusions are discussed. It also discusses flaws in the research, and lessons learned.

The test scores suggest that using moblogs during a course does not have any effect on the quality of reflection. Comparison of the reflective analysis reports shows that there are no significant differences in terms of quality. In the interviews that were held after the research, students indicated that the use of moblogs did not motivate them particularly in working with reflection. The fact that their mobile phone is a part of their social life, does not automatically mean they see it as a tool for reflection and learning as well. This seems to contradict what Rubens (2005) says about personal ownership of mobile devices and how they can foster learning. Kommers (2005) argues that mobile devices lower the boundaries between formal and informal learning, and that personal ownership of the device stimulates using mobile phones in learning processes.

This does not mean that moblogging cannot improve reflection processes with students. In further research or projects, improvements can be made in the following areas:

• Limits of research design
• Reflection and social interaction design
• Incorporation into curriculum
• Technological advances

Limits of research design

First of all, this experiment only focuses on two small groups, with a limited number of participants. The design of the research was pre-experimental (Baarde & de Goede, 2001), which has its limitations. According to Baarda & de Goede (2001), the effect which can be observed after the intervention could also be attributed to other factors. In this experiment, there was no clear observable effect with the experimental group, but what if this is due to other external factors? Baarde & de Goede (2001) also argue that there is a risk of grow- effects in this research design. In this case, the grow-effects were that the 8 weeks are at the end of the academic year, a period of time when students traditionally show some weariness and fatigue with their studies. In a future research with a group of students, the planning should really be taken into consideration.

Another issue that can be raised is the length of the moblogging workshop. Based on various literature resources, mobile technology is an area students should be fairly comfortable with, since they have grown up using this technology (Attewel, 2004; Kommers, 2005). The researcher then concluded that a three-hour workshop and a manual should be more than enough to enable the students to start using moblogging, but he may have underestimated this. Students indicated they ran into technical difficulties, and found it difficult at times to use the technology. In future research, this workshop should be extended to make sure that every student fully knows how to use moblogging and its technology. The workshop could perhaps be concluded with a test to make sure every student has the required competencies to use moblogging.

Reflection and social interaction design

Bolhuis (2009) argues that reflection cannot take place without social interaction. In this experiment, the social aspect of moblogging (i.e. commenting on work of others, interaction via weblogs) was not explored, whereas this may have been a strong aspect. The research of Wopereis (2006), in which the use of weblogs in education has been explored, seems to confirm this. Ferdig & Trammel (2004) observe that there will be a natural tendency for reflection and analysis on the part of the student, given feedback systems are integral to the blogging interface. Though the moblogs allowed the students to interact, this was not a part of the weblog and the experiment. Ferdig and Trammel (2004) also argue that weblogs are especially succesful in promoting interactivity that is conversational, a mode which fosters higher order thinking and reflection in general.

In future research into the effect of moblogging on reflection, the social interaction element of moblogs should therefore be an area of further exploration.

Incorporation into the curriculum

Bolhuis (2009) also argues that students view writing a reflective analysis report merely as a task that needs completing in order for them to pass the course. This is certainly how many students at the Training & Human Development Study Programme have indicated how they see reflection. In this experiment, moblogs were only used within course; the other courses that took place in the same period either did not require the students to submit a reflective analysis report, or were not part of the research; thus fostering the ‘traditional’ way of reflecting. In future researches, ways should be sought to make moblogging a more integral part of all the courses, so that students get a good chance to become more familiar with this new way of reflecting.

Technological advances

Students have suggested that if the technology were more user-friendly, they may be more tempted to start using moblogs in their learning process. The experiment was done a year ago (march – june 2008), and since that time, there have been some technological developments with regards to moblogging. First of all, since the beginning of 2009, Twitter has seen a massive rise in popularity as a moblogging platform, with an eay-to-use interface for moblogging  and an ever-growing community of users. At the time of the experiment, Twitter was still unknown as a moblogging platform. For the experiment, manuals had to be developed in order to explain to students how existing platforms like YouTube and Flickr could be used a moblogging platforms. With the arrival of Twitter, this does not seem necessary anymore.

Students have also indicated that it took too many steps to upload a picture to a moblog from their device. Recent N- Series mobile phones from Nokia, like the popular N95 or the N73, features for uploading multimedia content to a moblog have been incorporated into the device, making it easier to share content.

The video below shows how moblogging functions have been embedded in the Nokia N82, a popular phone model with young people.

4. Qualitative research

This chapter describes the qualitative research that was done after the experiment, to obtain reasons for the results the experiment yielded.

After the research had completed, the reflective reports of both groups were marked, using the standard  evaluation criteria. Comparison of the marks of both groups did not reveal any significant differences, both in terms of contents of the reflection or the quality of the reflection.

After the course, a short evaluation took place, in which the students indicated they did not use their moblogs very frequently during the course (in spite of all the support); some even said they had used it to a minimal extent. In order to find out the reasons why the students had been reluctant to use their moblogs during the course, the researcher chose to conduct a semi-structured group interview with the experimental group (1B). According to Baarda & de Goede (2001), an interview is especially useful for learning why people choose or choose not to do certain things, as opposed to just gathering what people do. In addition, if an interview contains many open questions that require elaborate answers from the respondents, an oral interview is to be preferred to a paper-based questionnaire. Another benefit of using oral interviews is that it allows the researcher to follow up on certain questions. If a respondent e.g. indicates that they have not fully understood the question, the interviewer can clarify.
Downside of conducting oral interviews is that respondents may be prone to answering what the interviewer may like to hear, instead of telling their true thoughts (Baarda & de Goede, 2001). In this case, the students generally indicated they did not see the added value of moblogging in learning, even though they knew the study programme was looking for positive results in this area. It seems that the point of social desirability can therefore be dismissed.
According to Baarda & de Goede (2001), another downside is that interviews do not always yield reliable information, because a respondent may not always be aware of their own behaviour. This is certainly something that could play a role in this interview. For example, what if a student indicates that they do not see the point of using mobile phones in formal learning processes, but subconsciously use it anyway, for example by texting a fellow student, asking them for feedback?
For reasons of practicality, a group interview as opposed to individual interviews was chosen.

Thirteen students were present during the group interview.

The group interview showed that the group had not really used moblogging to its full extent during the research; i.e. they only tried to use their phones a number of times because of the research, but they also continued using the reflection tools they used during previous courses, like a paper-based log book, or their e-portfolio log book. Even if there had been any differences in the quality of reflection, this could not have been because of the use of moblogging; for that, the usage was too little.

Below you can find the questions used in the group interview. Below each question you will find a summary of the students’ answers.

• How often did you use moblogging to record reflections during the learning process?

Most students (11) indicated they recorded their reflections at least a couple of times, especially at the beginning of the course. Two students never started because of technical difficulties that occured a number of times during the course of the research (e.g. connection drops, the moblog system that was temporarily unavailable). Technical difficulties were discussed in the sessions that were held during the research, but these students failed to mention their difficulties in these sessions. The students indicated they especially tried it at the beginning of the course, because of this research project but also out of curiosity to try new ways of recording reflections.

“T tried it a few times at the beginning of the course, right after the  mobile blogging workshop. After a while I stopped. I found it easier to just grab a pen and jot down my experiences, in stead of fiddling with the keypad of my mobile phone.”

“I took a picture of when we were working together on a report, but I never uploaded it to my blog. I did upload them at first, but then I stopped seeing the point, and I had captured the experience anyway. I just accessed the pictures on my phoen, without going to the moblog system.”

“I liked uploading short reflections to Numpa at first, it was a fun way to post reflections. Then I found that this way was actually too limited, the message size is too short to really post useful information. I also tried to type in text messsages and save them on my phone in stead of uploading them to Numpa. This also seemed to work ok for me.”

• Which functionalities did you use to record them: photo, video, audio, etc. Did you like these? Why (not?)

Most students tried either taking pictures or uploading short messages to the Numpa server. One student used their mobile phone as a voice recorder and used this way of recording reflections throughout the course. This was a method that had not been described in the manual or discussed in the workshop, she found out this method herself.

“I thought it was a very quick way of recording reflections. In stead of writing stuff down, I could just grab my mobile and speak out my thoughts about the project and record it. It has helped me to write a coherent reflective analysis report in the end”.

Students also indicated that they saw it as a fun way to try new methods of recording reflections, but when the experimentation phase was over, most of them saw no use for it and they stopped using it. The sessions that were held during the course of the research did not encourage them to pick it up again.

“It’s fun at the beginning, fiddling around with all these new possibilities

• Did you use your mobile phone throughout the course, or was there a time when you stopped using it? If so, when?

Most students (11 out of 13) indicated they stopped using their moblogs well before the end of the course. Only two remained using their device until the end of the course and continued updating their moblogs.

• If you did stop, why?

The students indicate a number of reasons for this.

- it did not become a part of their natural routine:

“After a while I reverted back to my paper-based log book and my portfolio. I often ‘forgot’ that I could have used my mobile for recording something that had happened during the project. It’s just not in my system to use a mobile phone for that, and I doubt that it ever will.”

- Technical difficulties, or technical boundaries:

““Now, it’s just too much of a hassle. You have to take out your mobile phone, activate the camera or the video function, shoot something, then create an MMS message to upload your multimedia and wait for this all to finish. After a few times you stop uploading your pictures, and even later you just stop alltogether. The manual that we were given at the beginning of the course gave clear instructions on how to set up your mobile and I know that we had sessions in between that we could use for technical questions, but you do not want to rely on these, you just want to go on.”

• If you stopped, what would have to change in order for you to use it?

A number of students indicated that if moblogging software would be incorporated on their device, and the software would be really user-friendly, they might actually use it:

“I wish my camera phone just had a simple button that said something like ‘upload to blog’, I might have used it then. Creating messages to upload stuff is just too much of a hassle.”.

“I just couldn’t get the MMS settings right; uploading an MMS would just occasionally work, but most of the time it did not. It is probably because of my phone contract, the manual and the meetings did not help me resolve these issues. This just frustrated me alltogether. I could have used SMS instead but I didn’t like that, because it was too simple. Moblogging should be as simple as sending a text message though”.

•  Would you use your mobile phone again (e.g. in another course) to record your reflections? If so, how?

Only one student indicated that they might use moblogging again in the future, for a different course and outside of this research project.

“I do not think we are that generation yet, the generation that incorporates their mobile phone into everything. It’s just a part of our personal lives, I would not want to see it as an instrument of learning. That connection would just never come up in my head. A mobile phone is something you use for your personal use and your free time.”

Perhaps if they make the technology easier to use, I would use it. Now it’s just too much of a hassle to seriously consider using it”.

The qualitative research shows a number of reasons why students did not use moblogging to its full extent. The next chapter discusses flaws in the research methods used, and recommendations for further research.

3. Method and results

This chapter describes which method was used during the research. First, the participants are described. Next, it describes the research questions, the research design and a justification for this.  Thirdly, the materials and apparatus (the workshops and the moblog systems) are described. Finally, it describes the procedure that was used.

Participants

The research consisted of two classes of full-time students, taking the ‘Training & Human Development’ bachelor degree course at HAN University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Participants were all at the same level in their studies and had met the same pre-requisites. Group A consisted of 12 students (6 male and 6 female) and group B consisted of 13 students (5 male and 8 female). The mean age of the students was 20.

Research question

• Does the use of moblogging have any effect on the quality of reflection with first-year students of the Training & Human Development study programme?

Research design

The design of this research can be qualified as pre-experimental research, design # 3: comparison of two existing groups, with post-test only. ( Baarda & de Goede, 2001, p. 115). In this design, there is a experimental group (the group that receives the intervention) and a control group (the group which does not receive any intervention). Using a control group allows the researcher to compare the results with a group who did not receive the intervention (in this case, the workshop Moblogging), making sure any differences can be attributed to that intervention.

According to Harinck (2007), an experiment is especially suitable for measuring whether a certain method or approach has proven results. In order to find out whether the use of moblogging has any effect on the quality of reflection, an experiment seems very suitable.

The reason for chosing a pre-experimental research design as opposed to a ‘true’ experimental design are the following:

Randomization. In a true experimental design, particpants of the two groups should be appointed to the groups randomly. The group that receives the intervention should also be selected at random (Baarde & de Goede, 2001).
This proved to be difficult to achieve in the Training & Human Development study programme. Courses and their pedagogy have been designed for classes to stay together as a group, e.g. because some learning activities required the students to know eachother. Composing two groups based on randomization would mean the two classes would have to be mixed. The results of this are unpredictable; students may for example refuse to partcipate in the research, or classes would have been different to schedule. According to Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2003), bias may be introduced as a result of differences in the selection of subjects for the comparison groups or when intact classes are employed as experimental or control groups.  In this case, the choice was to keep the two groups intact, because the two groups are very similar with regard to age and history, and proved to have a similar level of quality in reflection (shown by previous assessments).

There are some additional risks to be considered when choosing a pre-experimental research design:

• Baarde & de Goede (2001) argue that there is a risk of grow- effects in this research design. This means that there is a possibility that students become better reflectors over time (not because of the moblogging intervention). The hazard of grow-effects are limited, because the experiment takes a relatively short time (8 weeks). There is however a danger: the 8 weeks are at the end of the academic year, a period of time when students traditionally show some weariness and fatigue with their studies.
• Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2003) argue that there may be the risk of experimental mortality, .i.e the loss of subjects through drop-out. This happened in both class 1 A and 1B during the experiment; see also results.

The design of the experiment can be visualized as follows (click on the image to enlarge):

 

Class B was chosen as the experimental group. This group of students was asked to log any reflective experiences with the use of moblogging. They were not allowed to use standard means like paper notes. Every reflection that could be useful for the reflective analysis report was to be recorded with the use of their mobile phone and their moblog systems.

Class A was chosen as the control group. This group would continue their way of recording reflections, i.e. with the use of pen and paper, and a notebook.

An educational course unit (‘Begeleiden van Lerenden 1’) was chosen that required the students to write a reflective analysis report. During this educational course unit, group A was to write their reflective logs in the way they did in previous course units (i.e. by typing logs on their desktop PCs or by using a notebook) and group B would make notes of their experiences by using their mobile phones and several moblog services. Students of class 1B  would post their reflective experiences to their moblogs by using text messaging and / or picture messaging.

At the end of the course, both groups would use their notes to process them into a reflective analysis report, used for assessment. 

After all students had submitted their reflective analysis reports, The reports of both groups would then be compared using the assessment criteria which are used normally. The criteria for the evaluation form have been developed by the study programme, and are discussed in the theoretical framework. The evaluation form can be found here.

Materials and apparatus

Prior to the course, both groups received a training in reflection, to make sure both groups would know what was expected of them in terms of writing a reflective analysis report. The workshop built further upon what they had already learned about reflecting in previous courses.

This workshop lasted three hours and contained the following items:

- what is ‘good’ reflection? This item also discusses the indicators that would be used in the evaluation form at the end of the course.

- Models for reflection: A look at Korthagen’s model for reflection.

Click here for the PowerPoint used in this workshop, and here for the handout provided to the students.

Workshop moblogging for class 1b

In addition, class 1B received a three-hour workshop on moblogging. The workshop had three aims:

• To discuss the use of weblogs and moblogs for reflection.
  If you want your students to use weblogs and moblogs during a course, it is best to show them a number of good practices (Ferdig & Kaye, 2004). That was done during this section of the workshop.
• To make sure students knew how to use their cellphones in order to upload videos and images to the web.
• To make sure their devices had been enabled technically for moblogging.

Click here for the handout used in this workshop.

Course ‘Begeleiden van Lerenden 1’

During the course which was chosen for the experiment, students used their moblogs to gather reflections. During the course, three additional sessions were held to discuss how the experiment was going,  to find out if the students were encountering any problems and to keep the students motivated.

Results

After the course, the students used their moblogs to write the reflective analysis reports for their portfolios.  Of class 1A, 5 out of 12 students managed to submit their reflective analysis report before the deadline (three students dropped out during the experiment; the others simply failed to complete their portfolios before the deadline) . Of class 1b, 10 out of 13 managed to submit their reflective analysis report before the deadline.

The reflective analysis reports were then assessed by their teachers. To reduce intersubjectivity, the criteria (which are abstract and difficult to operationalize), the criteria were discussed by the teachers beforehand and assessments were compared and discussed afterwards. The researcher gathered both the reflective analysis reports and the assessments. The researcher assessed the reflective analysis reports, and then compared his assessment with the assessments of other teachers. The conclusion were mostly the same.

A comparison of the assessment criteria for both classes can be found in the table below:

Assessment criteria:	Class 1A (n=5):	Class 1B (n=10):
Describes reflection according to a cyclic model (E.g. Korthagen or Kolb)	60%	50%
Criticizes their own thinking and action when neccesary	60%	70%
Uses peer feedback proactively	80%	70%
Recognizes their own learning needs and can name these	80%	80%
Arranges suitable learning interventions for themselves.	60%	60%

These numbers do not show any significant differences, even though it can be argued that only a relatively small number of students of 1A managed to submit their reflective analysis report before the deadline. Based on the theories discussed in the theoretical framework, one would expect the percentages for class 1 B to be much higher.

A group interview with class 1 B was then scheduled to find out why the numbers did not differ very much from class 1 B. The interview and its outcomes is discussed in the following chapter ‘Qualitative research’.

Literatuuroverzicht Mobile Learning - 'Weblogs als reflectie-instrument' (Wopereis, 2006)

Dit document is een PowerPoint- presentatie, bedoeld voor een startbijeenkomst voor een traject om te onderzoeken in hoeverre weblogs kunnen dienen als reflectie-instrument. In deze presentatie staan een viertal aannames die voor dit onderzoek ook zeker van belang zijn. Hieronder geef ik deze assumpties weer, en voeg ik de rol van reflecteren door middel van mobiele technologie er aan toe:

weblog is instrument om (leer)processen (meer) te expliciteren (registratie)
Door mobiele telefoons te gebruiken in het leerproces heeft de lerende meer technologische mogelijkheden om zijn leerproces vast te leggen. Denk hierbij aan de (video) camera functies van moderne mobiele telefoons, en de mogelijkheden om gesprekken vast te leggen. Deze opnames kan de lerende direct plaatsen op een weblog.

weblog vergroot interactiviteit (leren van elkaar) (consultatie en conversatie)
Met de huidige mobiele telefoons is het mogelijk om reacties te plaatsen op forumberichten. Daarnaast kan de lerende laten weten wat hij op dit moment aan het doen is door gebruik te maken Twitter- achtige diensten.
In dit onderzoek richt ik me niet op de interactiviteit- mogelijkheden van het gebruik van mobiele telefoons in leerprocessen, maar op de verslaglegging van de individuele student.

weblog vergroot de motivatie
Een van de redenen waarom ik dit onderzoek ben gestart. Het vastleggen van reflectieprocessen is voor veel studenten nu nog iets dat achteraf gebeurt en dat zij veelal doen omdat het een vereist product voor de beoordeling is. Door gebruik te maken van de multimedia- mogelijkheden van mobiele telefoons maak je het vastleggen van reflectieprocessen wellicht makkelijker, en leuker.


weblog is een mogelijk antwoord op ‘uitstelgedrag’ van reflectie in leersituaties aanpakken (dynamiek)
Zie ook mijn toelichting bij het vorige punt. Studenten stellen het schrijven van reflectieverslagen nu vaak uit, waardoor het benoemen van essentiele aspecten en gebeurtenissen vaak verloren gaat. Door tijdens het leerproces gebeurtenissen vast te leggen met een mobiele telefoon, vindt reflectie regelmatiger plaats.


Download from: http://du.onderwijsontwikkeling.net/admin/download.php?id=947

Literatuuroverzicht Mobile learning: 'Mobile Technologies and Learning' (Attewell, 2004)

Dit document geeft eerst een overzicht van de huidige stand van zaken (d.w.z., in 2004) m.b.t. Mobile learning. Het geeft eerst een overzicht van alle beschikbare technologie (hardware, software, platforms, etc.) en gaat daarna in op het M-learning project. In dit project worden met name de M-learning mogelijkheden van met name op Symbian- en Windows Mobile gebaseerde smartphones verkend. De reden hiervoor is dat deze platforms het mogelijk maken additionele software te installeren, die alle mogelijkheden van het apparaat gebruiken. Gelukkig worden de 'standaard' mobiele telefoons niet vergeten; ook SMS- en JAVA gebaseerde leeroplossingen worden in dit stuk bekeken.
In het stuk staan verder de resultaten van projecten besproken waarbij studenten aan de slag gingen met M-learning oplossingen. Enkele opvallende statistieken:

“The learners were mostly enthusiastic about mobile learning and 62% reported that they felt more keen to take part in future learning after trying mobile learning. Of this 62% some expressed a future preference for learning”.

Na afloop van mijn onderzoeksproject beweerden studenten het tegenovergestelde. Uit het stuk wordt niet duidelijk in hoeverre zij zich op reflectie- achtige processen hebben gericht (wellicht alleen op learning content delivery), wellicht dat de uitkomsten dan anders zouden zijn.

“Analysis of the evidence collected during our research suggests that mobile learning can make a useful contribution to attracting young people to learning, maintaining their interest and supporting their learning and development. ”

Zie mijn opmerkingen bij het vorige punt. Mijn onderzoek laat zien dat het ondersteunen van reflectieprocessen door mobiele technologie nog niet automatisch meer gemotiveerde studenten en betere reflecties oplevert.


Download from http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.m-learning.org/docs/The%2520m-learning%2520project%2520-%2520technology%2520update%2520and%2520project%2520summary.pdf&ei=LT0ASvmlKoLG-Aab9tThBw&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&usg=AFQjCNGuNuf36kg_Bj-a4sI2EQurP-8vAA

Wavelog - an S60 client for blogger

This message has been posted from my Nokia E71 using Wavelogger, an s60 blogging client. Unfortunately it is not freeware - but if it works i might just purchase it. The interface is a bit tricky, but it works and that's what counts!

The pros and cons:

+ you can create, edit and save messages whilst offline and upload them later.
+ support for tags
+ support for editing messages that have already been posted.

- not freeware (and relatively expensive)
- not the most intuitive user interface i've seen