OCC2011 Keynotes: Kirsti Lonka
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

OCC2011 Keynotes: Kirsti Lonka

on

  • 3,281 views

Engaging Learning Environments – blending physical, virtual, social and mental spaces of learning

Engaging Learning Environments – blending physical, virtual, social and mental spaces of learning

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,281
Views on SlideShare
2,776
Embed Views
505

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

4 Embeds 505

http://www.eden-online.org 476
http://www.rgabor.hu 18
https://twitter.com 9
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

OCC2011 Keynotes: Kirsti Lonka OCC2011 Keynotes: Kirsti Lonka Presentation Transcript

  • Engaging Learning Environments – blending physical, virtual, social and mental spaces of learning Prof., Vice Dean Kirsti Lonka University of Helsinki, Finland & Karolinska Institutet, Sweden Teemu Patala, Context Learning Finland Oy
  • The Bulimic Learning Model
    • The aim of instruction is to fill in a container (human mind)
    • Take in knowledge, spread it on the exam paper, then forget
    • The goals are defined in quantitative terms
    • ” Students know 60 %”
    • How does this promote interest, motivation or team work?
  • Project-based work calls for creative improvisation! (Keith Sawyer, 2003)
    • A group of active participants who jointly create a product
    • Each of the participants has an own role and own strengths
    • Everybody should stay in the same tune, even though solos are ok from time to time
    • Basic principles of improvisation: 1) You are the star! 2) Happy mistakes, and 3) Yes, and…
  • Technology is a part of our social and knowledge practices…
  • Blended learning environments combine physical, virtual, social, mobile and mental spaces of learning
  • … but the spaces for learning remain the same .
    • The University of Helsinki launched its participation in the World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 year with a comprehensive theme “University of Helsinki – Designing the Future”
    • The aim is to communicate the actions of the university that contribute to the cultural, economic and social development of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area and the living environment in general
    • Design is understood as an active concept, as a series of best practices
    Helsinki World Design Capital 2012
    • New spaces for learning (HUBS for Learning) are going to be developed for teacher education
    • In addition, other facilities are going to be developed in order to be more activating, engaging and technologically advanced
    • ELE model is the central pedagogical design principle
    Engaging Learning Environments – ELE
    • 2011 developing the plans, interior design, technological plans, advertising the concept
    • 2012 Finishing the facilities
    • Summer school and Grand Opening (August 2012)
    • Exhibitions and Happenings (fall 2012)
    Activities in World Design Capital Year 2012
  • 21.11.11 Viestintä&yhteiskuntasuhteet/Ira Leväaho/WDC teemat
  • 21.11.11 Viestintä&yhteiskuntasuhteet/Ira Leväaho/WDC teemat
  • 21.11.11 Viestintä&yhteiskuntasuhteet/Ira Leväaho/WDC teemat
  • http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/
  •  
  • Learning HUBS for Future Teachers INTEREST AGENCY ENGAGEMENT FLOW INQUIRY
  • Research and development behind the ELE concept
    • Interest is a psychological state that is characterized by an affective component of positive emotion and a cognitive component of concentration (Hidi & Renninger, 2006)
    • Interaction between a person and surrounding context
    • Prior knowledge is related to interest experience (Alexander, Jetton & Kullikowich, 1995)
    • Students who experienced more interest also showed more persistence, and performed better in a recall test (Ainley, Hillman & Hidi, 2002)
    What is INTEREST?
  • THE FOUR-PHASE MODEL OF INTEREST (Hidi & Renninger, 2006)
    • Situational interest (CATCH)
    • a) triggered
    • b) maintained
    • Individual interest (HOLD)
    • a) emerging
    • b) well-developed
  • Instruction promoting interest? (Tsai et al, 2008)
    • If the teachers control too much, students’ emotions are less positive
    • Cognitive automy support gives students an enhanced sense of control
    • Cognitive autonomy is supported during lessons where students’ prior knowledge and understanding are activated and the aims are transparent
    • Such lessons are associated with more enjoyment and interest!
  • Activating and diagnosing , catching interest, setting context and goals, starting the process. Assessing change, deepening interest – what new was created? – what should be developed? The goal, summative evaluation Diagnostic evaluation, feed forward Diagnostic evaluation, feed forward Fostering the learning process and reflective thinking , maintaining interest , (face to face, P2P, virtually etc.), creating new knowledge or new practices DIAGNOSE ACTIVATE OBSERVE CHANGE FOSTER LEARNING Activating and engaging learning methods (Lonka & Ahola, 1995; Hakkarainen ym., 2004; Lonka & Ketonen, 2011) Feedback
    • Diagnosis, activation The process of knowledge creation starts with diagnosing current (shared) mental models and activating previous knowledge. The group has to acknowledge their needs for betterment, set goals, and start the process.
    ENGAGING LEARNING MODEL (Lonka & Ketonen, 2011)
    • The learning process The group starts to create new knowledge, new ways of thinking and new ways of acting. This may take place face to face, P2P, on the net, by self study, etc. The facilitator gives constructive feedback.
    ENGAGING LEARNING MODEL (Lonka & Ketonen, 2011)
    • Evaluation What has changed? What kind of new practices, ideas, or products have been created? Were the goals met – or even exceeded? Both the process and the product must be evaluated. What can we do better next time?
    ENGAGING LEARNING MODEL (Lonka & Ketonen, 2011)
    • Activating lecture courses (Lonka, 1998; Lonka & Ketonen, 2011)
    • Blended learning courses in leadership training (Ruusunen, Ketonen, Lonka, et al.)
    • Problem-based learning in medicine (Lonka, 2000)
    • Inquiry-based learning (Lonka, Hakkarainen & Sintonen, 2000)
    • Phenomenon-based learning in teacher education (Litmanen et al., submitted)
    Examples of ELE courses
  • Academic emotions explained almost 30 % of the study success in activating lecture course (Ketonen, 2011) 21.11.11 .48 .47 -.39
      • This model explained 29,4 % of the variance; R 2 =.294
      • Criteria: probability of F-to-enter <.05; to-remove >.10
    • Adding the other variables did not increase the
    • explanation significantly (Ketonen, 2011)
    The exam measured how the students could apply psychological knowledge in the classroom.
    • High challenge combined with feeling of competence
    • Engagement
    • Absorption, loosing sense of time
    • Promotes intellectual evolution
    • Part of normal daily experience
    FLOW – The optimal motivational experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988)
  • THE FOUR-CHANNEL MODEL OF FLOW (Csikszentmihalyi, 1993) COMPETENCE CHALLENGE - + FLOW RELAXATION/ BOREDOM ANXIETY APATHY + -
    • Positive emotions and flow experience were related to self-study time and study success in activating lecture course
    Engaged teacher students (n = 107) were doing best p = .010 p = .006 Lonka & Ketonen, 2011 Engaged n =34 Careless n =26 Anxious n= 40 Self-study time 16,6 h 8,5 h 10,4 h Study success 3,9 3,3 3,5
    • Flow typically occurs in clearly structured activities in which the level of challenges and skills can be varied and controlled
    • No activity guarantees constant flow, because the challenge is always relative to the current level of skill
    • Such activities are optimal for flow experiences, where the level of expertise and the criteria for success are constantly developing and transforming
    FLOW is the dynamic force in intellectual evolution
  • What do students really do and feel during their studies?
  • Contextual Activity Sampling System – CASS (Muukkonen et al. 2007)
    • A Java-application for collecting process- and context-sensitive data
    • Implemented on 3G mobile devices
    • Responses are returned to server database
    • Created in a larger EU-project (KP LAB)
  • Student experiences in different contexts
    • Activating a meaningful context
    • Supporting the learning process
    • Promoting flow and interest
    • Understanding the interplay between emotions and intelligence action
    • Peer-to-peer interaction and collaborative learning
    • Blended learning environments
    • Designing physical, social, virtual, and mental learning spaces to engage both teachers and students
    How to promote flow and meaningful learning?
    • Ainley, M., Hillman, K., & Hidi, S. (2002). Gender and interest processes in response to literary texts: situational and individual interest. Learning and Instruction, 12 (4), 411-428.
    • Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kullikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest and recall: assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (4) , 559-575.
    • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and human psychology. In: M. Csikszentmihalyi & I.S. Csikszentmihalyi (eds.), Optimal experience. Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (15-35). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    • Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers. The roots of success and failure. Canada: Cambridge University Press.
    • Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K. & Lipponen, L. (2004). Tutkiva oppiminen. Järki, tunteet ja kulttuuri oppimisen sytyttäjinä. Porvoo: WSOY.
    • Hidi, S. & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 111-127.
    References (1/2)
    • Ketonen, E. (2011). Kiinnostusta vai ahdistusta? Opettajaksi opiskelevien akateemiset tunteet, motivaatio ja opiskelun ongelmat suhteessa hyvinvointiin ja menestykseen aktivoivalla luentokurssilla. University of Helsinki. Department of teacher education. Unpublished master´s thesis.
    • Lonka, K. & Ahola, K. (1995). Activating instruction - how to foster study and thinking skills in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10 (4), 351-368.
    • Lonka, K. & Ketonen, E. (submitted, 2011). Engaging learning – how to make lectures more activating? Studies for the Learning Society .
    • Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., Jalonen, S., Kosonen, K., Heikkilä, A., Lonka, K., Inkinen, M., Salmela-Aro, K., Linnanen, J., & Salo, K. (2007). Process- and context-sensitive research on academic knowledge practices: developing CASS-tools and methods. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference. Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA, July 16-21, 2007.
    • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive resbonsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
    • Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, M., Ludtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R.M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 460-472.
    Prof. Kirsti Lonka Faculty of Beh Sciences References (2/2)