Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for the nice introduction and of course thanks also for inviting me. „ Creative Learning cultures “ that is the title of my presentation. In the next 20 minutes, I describe educational innovations and examples of knowledge sharing SUPPORTED BY social media.
Afterwards introducing the topic of social media and examples, I ‘ ll present my research question and theoretical framework. First answers is given by my projects. Results will be described in the „lessons learned “ section. I close with a conclusion and an outlook.
Web 1.0 often is chracterized with „only download of information“ . In contrast, Web 2.0 also includes human communication and collaboration that is computer-mediated. The term „Social“ in social media stresses these communcation and cooperation possibilies. What we observe, for example, is millions of users in Wikipedia, and thousands of online boards for all topics you can imagine. Another example is facebook – a social networking platform. During the volcano ash cloud time, people provided private accommodations organized carpools via Facebook To conclude, the term “Social media“ stresses that the Internet has more social interactions than it was possible in Web 1. Web 2.0 is highly interactive. Users are becoming pro-SUMERs, that is a combination of consumers+producers. So, we could be happy? Or? BUT….
BUT, we also see a lot of problems. For example, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is on its way to an ‘opinion-maker and opinion-leader’ for many people. ALTOUGH, we know, some articles are not true - at least in detail – people believe what Wikipedia says. There are further problems, for instance, Personal data: marketing companies make profiles about user’s behavior And also: cheating in universities: students use Wikipedia and other easy-to-find Internet-sources without cite them, or cite them right To summarize, People using web 2.0 without knowing about the data problems OR they know, however they still use it. ** As a member of the excellent research network named as “Global Young Faculty”, we now made a survey about 5 types of Internet behavior what we call „Human Being 3.0“. In a published chapter 2009 in the Handbook of socio-technical design and networking, I describe such new socio-technical relationships and their emergent properties.
Often, new technologies are like a „satellite “ around the course – both is not integrated good enough!
Well,…how can we solve these problems regarding learning with new technologies ? One thesis is: it depends on the DESIGN – on the socio-technical & educational design!
Thus, the research question is: How to design (develop & evaluate) computer-enhanced (creative) learning and knowledge sharing Successfully ? And: What are appropriate elements for studying/designing? I reveal TRENDS and give first answers, of course - BUT I cannot give a totally complete answer today.
BUT what does successful mean? – when regarding computer-supported learning and its design… There are three dimenisions: The degree of structural coupling, also named as degree of interrelationships, stresses the elements of technical, social/organisational AND pedagocial concepts and their complex interconnections. How close or loose are these elements connected? Second: the degree of quality. Theses degree shows how good or not good the elements play together. The better the unit among these three elements, the more the users are satisfied, the better knowledge sharing takes places. With regard to social media and LMS, the better they learn Finally, Successful depends on what the users ‘ role is. Different roles have different concepts about what sucessful means for them. Teachers, Students, university managers, pedagogical experts, eLearning experts, define it in different ways. A good design includes different views, or at least, supports a common understanding. NUR INTERN Technical = easy-to-use; is technical system changeable easily or difficult (by external people, software engineers; access to WLAN; …? social/organizational elements = communication: online, when?; roles of teachers: expert, moderator of promoting flow/motivation?; organizational issues: rooms for co-located learning; “modlab”; teacher’s attitude; teacher’s concepts; …? pedagogical elements = formal, informal learning; phases of individual/group/community learning; research-based, problem-based, scenario-based, experimental learning, which competences, instructions,…?
The thesis is it depends on the design, and the question is how to design. This slide gives an selected overview of what we already know from the socio-technical paradigm that is well-known in knowledge management and CSCW. Lucy Suchman studied how people use ICT in social interactions and found that they create an own understanding just-in-time they use the ICT. Her approach is called „situated action “ . Social and technical systems are not two seperately things BUT they create a new relationships with emergent properties. Herrmann, Loser and also me, we illustrated in several cases studies how human communication generates new structures and regulations which A) form the technical elements and B) which are also partially determinedby the technical system.
Besides the mentioned sociotechnical approach, CSCW and CSCL – my approach also inlcudes socio-technical communities – as extended part of an official university . Please see in more detail, my results from workshops in France, in the IJWBC and my presentation at CSCL conference. And, I also add a new and differentiated view on roles. At universities, there exist both „communities AND formal learning structures of universities “ – revealing roles and role structures can help to understand and design knowledge management.
Here you see the relation between data collection and analysis AND the changing practice, according to the DBR approach.
I ‘ ll present three project and results: DaVINVI, PeTEX and InPUD community.
The DaVINCI project is promoted by the bmbf over 3 years. The objective is to study creativity-supportive learning cultures. We study computer sience faculties and pedagagical ones. First, we did 10 interviews with outstanding teachers, and 10 with regular teachers at UAMR in order to obtain a first understanding of what the teachers think what creativity is. A second phase, is the development of creativity-supportive learning scenarios. A first evaluation of two courses took place in Wintersemester 2009/10 . We also have created two modules for training the teacher. A fouth step is an online survey and later , the redesign.
Here you see the 6-stages-model. If you are interested in a more detailled description, I could give illustration after my presentation
First results are the 6-stages-model about „ creativity-supportive learning in higher education ” - ranging from “reflective learning”, and support of FLOW experiences, to “new thinking cultures” and “absolute new ideas”. Second, a result is the 4-field-matrix that contains 4 dimensions. It is a kind of a CHECK LIST, HOW to design WHAT. For example, when in the learning process or overall curriculum and courses is creativity needed? And third, we designed 4 computer-enhanced learning scenarios, for instance, research-based learning as blended learning with WIKIS; interactice lectures with discussion boards; online learning called “student-generated webtours” and co-located learning with mindmeister.com. Finally, the 2 training workshops are titled with „Web 2.0, eLearning & Co. “ and „through the barricades – creativity in higher education “ .
The objective of PeTEX is, to design, develop and evaluate a platform for eLearning and telemetric experimentation for production engineering. It is an european promoted project over 2 years. We work together with 3 Labs: Dortmund, Stockholm and Palermo universities. The central research question is: H ow can we integrate remote-controlled experiments with video-support and web-based interfaces, into online learning processes, so that we get a successful eLearning platform and learning community over time? According to the Design-based-research approach (DBR), the team created a first sociotechnical prototype including a pedagogical concept. We have a first evaluation after 6 months for evaluating the model and a second evaluation in this year supplemented with usability tests. FÜR MICH FSW = schweißen Milling = fräsen
One central result from the first EVALUATION is the model. Here you see the realized model based on Moodle. The learning walkthrough covers a range of learner ’s activities including “walk trough the learning modules” and “preparation of remote experiments”, for instance, creating hypothesis before they walk through the remote lab. After the experimentation, learners write a lab-report about “what they have observed, analyzed and learnt”. Such an assessment activity – reflective learning – called “learning diary” is followed firstly by peer-reviewing processes within the learning community and secondly by feedback from the teacher. In case of successful assessment, the learner will get a certificate. We ‘ve got a list with more than 30 feedback items given by the experts. For example, the experts recommend following: - PeTEX team should create a policy including a reservation system for booking experiments. - Second, they also discuss to use a standardized framework for the learning modules in Moodle. They say „ One style sheet for the learning modules ” , and “ Do not produce too long learning module - not longer than 20 min! ” and – very important – “ more active tasks for learners than passive reading, listening or watching something ” . The experts stressed: every 7-10 minutes (read/listen/watch sth.), an active task is needed – otherwise it could be too boring.
Standardized framework One style sheet for the learning modules: “ LernBar ” provides a frame and structure Learning level of complexity Not too easy but not too much complexity (not too boring, not too difficult), PeTEX decided to integrate three learning levels for identified target groups (what is too easy/complex for them); Reducing time (awareness) Do not produce too long learning module (it could be too boring) Integrate “how much time a learning module takes” (gives orientation, affects motivation), a scale with “percent” or “average estimated time”
The third project is called InPUD. InPUD is an abbreviation for In formatics P ortal U niversity of D ortmund. It is a socio-technical community STC. It has to be mention that a STC is a special form of a community. It is an extended part of an official organisation, for example a university of faculty. The o bjective was to create knowledge management about the student ’s study organization. The longitudinal study were conducted over seven years. Methods were: First, we did open-ended interviews with students and teachers, professors and study advisors before the STC was initiated (2001-2002) . Aim was to reveal student ’s problems with the study organisation. Then, we made standardized questionnaires. One survey was before launching the STC. It was in 2002 and a second was 7 years later (in 2009) online. In the first survey 384 out of 430 were returned. The sample represented around 20 percent of all computer science students enrolled. The second has similar numbers, 345 questionnaires were returned. The study also considered user statistics and log-files. For example, webpage requests 2002 to 2005. In addition, participant observations were performed on the online discussions in InPUD (especially in 2003 to 2006). Furthermore, talks were conducted to get data about the students ’ reasons, why they use the STC and why they contribute to the STC. Between these data collection and analysis phases, design, development and continuing improvements took place.
These are the online forums and boards for both Study organization and questions for that as well as communication about concrete courses, their structures, content and so forth.
This chart shows the network structure of INPUD. More than 270 students have provided contributions regularly. Currently there are a total of almost 1, 500 students out of 2,000.
Here are some examples, what the community-members do often OR Very OFTEN - They share information about tutorials or lectures They solve exercises collaboratively ONLINE they learn to handle different opinions. and ask subject-specific question about courses
From the comparison in 2002 and 2009, we did learn following: The mean is in 2009 WITH the community ONE “grade” better than in 2002 before the community was launched. It is now 2 in the mean, it was just a 3 before . That result is significant. Better is – for instance – the information and communication supply at the faculty. It is more easily accessible, helpful and clearer structured than in 2002. Information is easier to find!
Again, here are the lessons learned, now for InPUD. First, socio-technical communities are effective solutions that supports informal learning and knowledge sharing ABOUT study organisation. Second, informal learning can be promoted effectively with interactive online boards. That means: A STC supports a better learning chance for all, and can integrate weakly coupled learners, too And: It supports an anywhere, anytime access and makes it so easier to engage students in learning So, I conclude, computer-supported learning is an effective supplement to formal learning It supports the flexibility of learning and different forms of learning
Social media IS not the first approach regarding computer-supported learning. The time line shows that the CBT – Computer Based Trainings – has begun in the 80s and years ago. E-Learning here meant that one person was sitting at the computer and did learn something individually NOT in a group, e.g., a language. In the 90s the CSCL approach – computer-supported collaborative learning – came up. The studies focused on learning in teams. Today, we are in the age of social media and Web 2.0, where online communities in large groups are in the middle of the investigation. What is coming next?
I now describe what I mean with „internet-creative lifewide learning cultures “ Universities today are central learning locations. BUT in future, universities and higher education, take the task to ORGANIZE different learning spaces and locations. That also includes material from Internet (see „Student generated webtours “ scenario) Universities today focus on formal learning in classes. In the future, they will combine different forms, formal AND informal and will support these both. Instead of focusing the presence only, in the future, universities will structure learning processes with presence BUT also WITH blended learning, online and co-located learning elements. Not the individual learning only, BUT also community learning will be part of a university. Not the focus on content only, BUT the integration of co-construction of knowledge and THEREFORE competence development will be a task of higher education. And finally, the professional knowledge is focused today, BUT in the future, higher education enables creativity-supportive learning cultures The transformation of higher education towards such internet-creative lifewide learning cultures has already begun. It also depends on us, what and how to design…
isajahnke ictml umea 2011-05-v1
Creative Learning Cultures educational innovations in a Web2.0-world Isa Jahnke [email_address] May 2011 Umeå Universitet
<ul><li>Millions of users in Wikipedia (collaboration; ProSumers = consumers+producers) </li></ul><ul><li>Thousands of online discussion boards (e.g., marathon training, health, movies…) </li></ul><ul><li>Facebook (e.g., volcano ash cloud: people provided private accommodations organized carpools via Facebook) </li></ul><ul><li>Twitter (e.g., information about protests during Iran election, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Crowdsourcing * (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Innocentive = Internet services, new form of knowledge generating processes) </li></ul>Web 1.0 = download only Web 2.0 = communication *Jahnke & Prilla, 2008 (Eds. Back, Gronau, Tochtermann) 2011-05-04 [email_address]
… and problems <ul><li>Wikipedia: ‘opinion-maker/-leader’ for many people; true information? </li></ul><ul><li>Data privacy: marketing companies make profiles about user’s behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Stalking with GPS tracking </li></ul><ul><li>Cheating in universities: students use Wikipedia and other easy-to-find Internet-sources without cite them correctly </li></ul><ul><li>People using Web2.0 without knowing about the data problems, OR they know however they still use it (how to teach “reflection”?) * </li></ul><ul><li>New “socio-technical relationships” ** with emergent properties ( socio-technically constructed ) </li></ul>**Jahnke 2009 (Handbook Whitworth, about socio-technical systems) *Member of excellent research network Global Young Faculty (GYF), Tech group, survey about Internet behavior „Being 3.0“ 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Social Media in higher education Jury member RCO: Courses Campus Online Teaching/ learning processes New Technologies 2011-05-04 [email_address]
<ul><li>How to solve these problems regarding learning with new technologies ? </li></ul><ul><li>Thesis </li></ul><ul><li>It depends on the DESIGN – </li></ul><ul><li>socio-technical & educational design </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
Overview “ Designing the interdependencies ” Inter-dependencies Use of Technology (Social Media) Teaching and Learning Cultures (different faculties, disciplines, subjects) Didactical approaches (e.g., fostering creativity, PBL) Design-Based Research 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Research question How to design (develop & evaluate) Technology-enhanced learning successfully ? Wasson (2007): Design and Use of Technology Enhanced Learning Environments What does “ successful ” mean? What elements can be designed? What are appropriate methods? Jahnke et al. 2010, GMW Zurich; REV Stockholm 2011-05-04 [email_address]
What does “successful” mean? (regarding computer-enhanced learning) <ul><li>1) Degree of structural coupling (degree of interdependency) how close/loose are the three elements connected </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical Systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social-organizational Structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Educational, didactical Concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2) Degree of quality </li></ul><ul><li>how good the three elements play together </li></ul><ul><li>The better the unit,… … the better they share knowledge … the better they learn … the more the users (teachers/students/university managers,…) are satisfied (with the “embeddedness”) </li></ul><ul><li>3) Successful for which people? </li></ul><ul><li>different target groups and different roles (dynamical changes!) (students, professors, teachers, lifelong learners, newbies, experts) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in different situations (e.g., courses), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in different systems (universities, faculties, different cultures) </li></ul></ul>Jahnke, Pleul, Terkowsky, Tekkaya 2010 Suchman 1987/ 2007 Orlikowski, 1996 Coakes, 2002 Herrmann/Loser/Jahnke 2007 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Socio-technical paradigm – what we already know <ul><li>Coakes (2002), knowledge management; Emery & Trist (1964), Mumford (2000) </li></ul><ul><li>The study of the relationships and interrelationships between the social and technical parts of any systems / equal weight to social and technical issues </li></ul><ul><li>Suchman (1987), workplace studies STS research = how people use ICT in social interactions/actions </li></ul><ul><li>“ Situated action ” = focusing on concrete situations where people use technology (technology development without regarding social context tend to fail) </li></ul><ul><li>Orlikowski (1996) Metamorphoses of technology usage over time (duality of technology) </li></ul><ul><li>Herrmann, Loser, Jahnke (2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Communication (in “situated action”) generates new structures and regulations... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>which form (coin) the technical system/structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>which are partially determined by the technical system </li></ul></ul>duality of structures Giddens 1984 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Socio-technical paradigm what we already know <ul><li>Socio-technical approach / CSCW (e.g., Data/information/Knowledge, Willke 2001; knowledge management systems, Coakes 2002; G. Fischer 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>CSCL: co-construction of knowledge (e.g., Koschmann, Stahl, Suthers, Dillenbourg 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>+ Socio-technical Communities/STC (e.g., Communities of practice, Wenger & et al. 2002; Online communities, Preece, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>+ New view on roles - position, -actor ’s activities/tasks, -implicit/explicit expectations, -role-making </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop organization, France, COOP 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Guest editor IJWBC 2009 with Piet Kommers/NL </li></ul><ul><li>Jahnke & Koch 2009, E-CSCW, Web 2.0 goes academia </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop with G. Fischer, Boulder (Co), GROUP 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>CSCL 2009, Greece; Jahnke 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Presentation in York/UK 2006; </li></ul><ul><li>Jahnke 2010, GMW; </li></ul><ul><li>Guest Editor IJSKD (Coakes, UK) with Ulbrich/Canada & Mårtensson/Sweden ( “Knowledge Development and the Net Generation in HE”), IJSKD 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Presentation in Washington DC, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Jahnke 2006, Dissertation </li></ul><ul><li>EARLI Budapest 2007, with Jan-W. Strijbos/NL; </li></ul><ul><li>Jahnke 2010, Journal “Computers in Human Behavior” </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
Methodology: Design-Based Research Reeves, Herrington & Oliver 2005 Wang & Hannafin, 2005 Analysis (Evaluation,…) Design (Development,…) <ul><li>Data collection / - analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Methods: </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul><ul><li>participant observation </li></ul><ul><li>questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>login files </li></ul><ul><li>evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul>Changing practice 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Research projects <ul><li>DaVINCI, BMBF, 2008-2011 creativity </li></ul><ul><li>PeTEX, EU, 2009-2010 online learning </li></ul><ul><li>InPUD, TUD 2001-2009 community cultures </li></ul><ul><li>MARIS, BMBF, 2005-2008 --- case studies, knowledge management, production processes </li></ul><ul><li>eGOV, 2006-2007 Informationsbüro d-NRW --- study about electronic government trends, actors, topics </li></ul><ul><li>WINK, BMWI, 2005-2007 --- formative evaluation of 7 knowledge media projects </li></ul><ul><li>EVAL, BMBF, 2005-2006 --- “knowledge loops” of BMBF research programs and –projects, summative and formative evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>LearnDO, BMBF,2002-2004 --- learning region Dortmund, knowledge sharing with BSCW </li></ul><ul><li>Werk-Stadt Dortmund, SFS-KOWA, 2002 --- socio-technical web design of regional networks; Dortmund, study of participatory design via Internet </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
DaVINCI “What is a creative effort given by your students?” <ul><li>Title Creativity in (Technology-Enhanced) learning cultures; BMBF 2008-2011, together with IMTM/Bochum U </li></ul><ul><li>Methods </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviews with experts (20 outstanding & ”normal” teachers, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online survey about creativity-stages (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creating ‘creative learning scenarios‘ (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creating ‘trainings/modules for teachers’ (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of intervention / redesign (2010-2011) </li></ul></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
2011-05-04 [email_address] Creativity in HE Description (Enabling students to do…) Examples „What is a creative effort of students? “ 6. Original, entirely new ideas The production of many ideas can be encouraged through creativity techniques and appropriate environment: ‘enable the possibility of arrival’; Allowing and encouraging mistakes. <ul><li>Showing, using new ways of solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Students create new relations (between existing topics) </li></ul><ul><li>Unusual, original topics for presentations etc. </li></ul><ul><li>A new „story “ about a research topic </li></ul>5. Fostering a new culture of thinking Change of perspective, break through routines and patterns of habit, take a different attitude, reduce prejudice, integrate provocations, dealing with ambiguities, reflection on one's own creativity and thought-structure, knowledge about the inner-workings of the brain. <ul><li>Several perspectives on one topic (multiple perspect.) </li></ul><ul><li>Deviances from standards and routines </li></ul><ul><li>Relations to different disciplines </li></ul>4. Fostering constructive learning … where students create something; creation of, for example, interconnections in theses, research-mode learning projects, aid and outreach projects; planning a conference. <ul><li>Students create something (e.g., conference planning/-conduction; e-Infrastructure-concept; podcasts; students design a lesson for other students) instead of doing a traditional presentation </li></ul>3. Fostering fascination / increasing motivation to learn Enabling situated learning, use experiences of students, developing interesting ways to pose questions or problems; richness/variety; establish a link to practice; use of metaphors, humor <ul><li>Students use their own experiences (e.g., experiences as student worker, from school etc.)… </li></ul><ul><li>… and integrate these into lectures, courses </li></ul><ul><li>Students are fascinated from the topics </li></ul>2. Fostering the ability to work autonomously Enabling the individual student to set the acquisition of knowledge in motion; Enabling students to learn that they are responsible for steering the processes of learning; enabling to make one's own decisions. <ul><li>Students develop own research questions and choose a topic autonomously </li></ul><ul><li>Students work on the topic and organize the learning process self-controlled and autonomously </li></ul><ul><li>They create own learning outcomes </li></ul>1. Fostering independent, self-reflective learning Learner ‘constructs’ knowledge oneself rather than adopting it; enabling students to hold an internal dialog, breaking out of a receptive posture, supporting lateral and critical thinking. <ul><li>critical thinking, when students think about (quality of discussion contributions) </li></ul><ul><li>not repetitive </li></ul><ul><li>Students identify stereotypes, assumption </li></ul><ul><li>They do more than task is given </li></ul>
DaVinci – more results…. <ul><li>4-field-matrix gives answers to: what, how to design? </li></ul><ul><li>4 scenarios to support creativity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research-based learning with wikis (blended learning) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive lectures by a discussion board/forum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student-generated Webtours (distance learning) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-located learning with i-clicker, mindmeister, twitter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2 training modules ( “Web 2.0, eLearning & Co”, “Through the barricades”) for teachers (workshops also conducted at Uni Trier, Münster, FH Köln, Berlin) </li></ul>6 facets of creativity support 4 computer-enhanced learning scenarios 2 modules (train the teacher) 4-field-matrix 2011-05-04 [email_address]
PeTEX <ul><li>Platform for eLearning and Telemetric Experimentations Production Engineering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EU, 2008-2010, Partners: Stockholm KTH, Palermo DTMPIG </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 Labs: Tensile test, compression test (semi- and fully-automatic), Friction stir welding (semi-automatic); Milling process (semi-automatic) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RQ: How to design live-experiments embedded into online learning? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing tele-operated experiments including video-supported, web-based interfaces to the labs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>embedded into a LMS (Moodle) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>with peer-reviewed feedback (Blogs, “reflective learning”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Method: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design-based research (DBR) with modeling method </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Midterm evaluation with experts (2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Final evaluation (2010) </li></ul></ul>Jahnke et al. 2009 DELFI conf 2011-05-04 [email_address]
1. Learning Modules (interactive tasks) 3. Reflective learning (learners write a report, get reviews) 2. Preparing and doing an EXP 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Experts evaluation (June 2009) 32 Items, 4 Cluster <ul><li>Experiment </li></ul><ul><li>What is a successful EXP? (if the experiment „fails ” what will the learner learn then?) </li></ul><ul><li>Technical design </li></ul><ul><li>Booking system, schedule </li></ul><ul><li>Educational Design </li></ul><ul><li>Standardized framework </li></ul><ul><li>Learning level of complexity </li></ul><ul><li>more active tasks than passive reading (every approx. 10 minutes, an active task is needed; it affects motivation) </li></ul><ul><li>Social Design </li></ul><ul><li>Review process ( Who gives feedback to whom in the phases of writing a report?) </li></ul>Terkowsky, Jahnke et al. 2010 REV, Stockholm 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Final evaluation 2010 PeTEX Video “ Demo_Petex.avi ”
InPUD <ul><li>In formatics P ortal U niversity of D ortmund = InPUD, a socio-technical community (STC), launched 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>RQ: How to design knowledge management about study organization? </li></ul><ul><li>Methods: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open-ended interviews (with students and teachers, professors, study advisors) before the STC was initiated (2001-2002) -> reveal student ’ s problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardized questionnaires before launching the STC ( 2002 ) and seven years later (2009) - online survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participant observation supplemented with interviews (in particular 2002-2004) </li></ul></ul>Jahnke Diss 2006 Jahnke 2008, Krems & Journal CiHB, 2010 2011-05-04 [email_address] Designing designing, development continuing improvements
InPUD Portal Foren www.inpud.de 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Number of contributions 10-25 c. 51-100 c. 26-50 c. 1-9 c. 101-200 c. 201 and more c. (max. 500 per student) Core of community members (ca. 270) contribute regularly 0 contributions 21.1 % (=312) 16.2 % (=240) 8.2% (=121) 43.9 % (=649) 4.7 % (=70) 4.0% (=59) 1.8% (=27) n=1 478 (from 2 000 students) 2011-05-04 [email_address]
What community members do… Preparing for examinations Knowledge exchange with students Subject-specific questions about courses Asking sth. about exercises Learning to handle different opinions Solving exercises collaboratively Sharing information about lectures, tutorials Members’ activities (very often & often, Likert scale / n=182) Helping other students Asking organizational issues (courses) Communication with teachers Getting in contact with other people Getting in contact to companies 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Comparison 2002 and 2009 The information and communication supply at the Department is… … helpful, valuable … easily acessible … clear structured … Information easy to find … complete Before InPUD 2002 (n= 391) With InPUD 2009 (n=292) Mean; Scale 1-5 1 = highly agree to 5 = higly disagree * = significance; 95%- confidence interval Mean 2002: 3.0 Mean 2009: 2.0 Jahnke, 2010 Zürich 2011-05-04 [email_address]
<ul><li>Improvements by InPUD </li></ul><ul><li>When to attend what courses </li></ul><ul><li>How to combine lectures, tutorials, practical courses etc </li></ul><ul><li>Who is responsible for what in the department </li></ul><ul><li>Getting in contact with other students </li></ul><ul><li>How many hours do I need to complete the course </li></ul><ul><li>When to expect problems </li></ul>Improvements & side-by effects <ul><li>No effects (no improvements by InPUD) </li></ul><ul><li>When and how to prepare for what examinations </li></ul><ul><li>How important a lecture/course is for the studies/job/competence development etc. </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
InPUD… <ul><li>Lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge sharing is more effective with an STC than with Web 1.0 conditions only </li></ul><ul><li>An STC is an effective supplement to formal learning </li></ul><ul><li>Explanations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>STC supports flexibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>anywhere, anytime </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>easier to engage users, integration of weakly coupled users </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different access to information and knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>STC supports a better learning chance for all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An STC provides flexible communication spaces with a specific quality of relationships (foster social proximity through ICT) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>=> Knowledge management needs a balance of “static” information (Web 1.0) AND communication spaces (Web 2.0) (what balance? => depends on target groups, their needs) </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
E-learning over time CBT 1980… CSCL 1990… Social Media (Web 2.0) 2004… … Educational mash-ups Creative lifelong learning cultures 2011... Jahnke 2009, STC in: Whitworth ‘ s Handbook Jahnke 2006, presentation in York, UK 2011-05-04 [email_address]
People Process embedded into institutional cultures Fostering creativity in learning cultures supported by social media Research plan 2011-05-04 [email_address] Skills, competencies (e.g., i-literacies, creative thinking/actions) Students (the reflective student; „Being 3.0 “ ) a Teachers (professional development ICTML!) b <ul><li>Designing new courses & scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>„ Master of ICTML in higher education “ (new program?) </li></ul>c Classroom Assessment Techniques e (Student ‘ s) Evaluation of teaching f Informal & formal learning (lifelong learning) d How to bring innovations into practice? g
Thanks for your attention! <ul><li>Publications? Please ask, I send it to you </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.isa-jahnke.de </li></ul>
<ul><li>What media-/ i-literacies do students have? Study about „Being 3.0 “ and awareness (1 year) </li></ul><ul><li>What media competencies do teachers (in schools/Univ) have? Study about teachers and their competencies using new media in HE; how they use what Social Media in HE; attitudes and habitus; what learning outcomes do they enable (2 years) </li></ul><ul><li>How to design creative learning scenarios in disciplines successfully? What role plays new media? Based on DaVINCI results „Fostering creativity in HE cultures “ , developing/implementing creative teaching and learning arrangements (e.g., PeTEX); (2-3 years) </li></ul><ul><li>What potentials do informal learning have? Research about the connection of formal and informal learning supported by Social Media Lifelong learning; CSCL at the workplace, cf. InPUD; (3 years) </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
e) What are sufficient assessments when implememting competence-/creativity-oriented learning processes? when teaching does foster creativity, examiniations also must include creativity aspects instead of traditional examinations (3 years) f) To what extent are (student ‘ s) evaluations of teaching useful for improving teaching/learning? Study about existing evaluation practices, and good practices regarding competence-oriented evaluation (e.g., Berlin „BevaKomp), developing design criteria (2 years) g) Visions, innovations, prototyps are required BUT bring it into practice: To what extend and how to transfer innovative TEL scenarios in practice? 2011-05-04 [email_address]
Transformation of higher education Creative lifelong learning cultures <ul><li>Universities today </li></ul><ul><li>Central learning locations </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on formal learning in classes </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on presence </li></ul><ul><li>Focusing individual learning </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching paradigm (teacher-centered courses) </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on content </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher are experts </li></ul><ul><li>Professional knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Future tasks of universities (Education 2.0) </li></ul><ul><li>Organizing different learning spaces (including material from Internet, access to social media) </li></ul><ul><li>Managing formal, non-formal and informal learning spaces </li></ul><ul><li>Specific integration of presence, blended, online learning, co-located learning (see BOLD, Michael Power ) </li></ul><ul><li>Mix of individual, collaborative, cooperative, community learning, and mobile learning </li></ul><ul><li>Learning paradigm with appropriate instructions (e.g., research-based learning, Alan Jenkins ) </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting co-construction of knowledge, capability to perform/act (knowledge, skills, behavior = competences) </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers are experts BUT also moderators, coaches (depends on situation) </li></ul><ul><li>Professional knowledge sharing embedded into creative, inspiring learning cultures </li></ul>2011-05-04 [email_address]
Teaching and Learning …between instruction (teacher) and construction (learner) <ul><li>“ Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge – and instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge” </li></ul><ul><li>(Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) </li></ul>April 2011 [email_address]
Situated learning needs… Lave & Wenger 1991 complex problems authenticity multiple perspectives articulation and reflection social exchange