1. BooksprintCollaborative Knowledge Construction CIES - New Orleans 3/11/2013 (Thayer & Sintjago, 2013) http://z.umn.edu/booksprintcies2013
2. What is a Booksprint?● Used to produce open source manuals● Publishable product in 2-5 days ○ No pre-production ○ "Hackathon" approach ○ Intensive creative collaboration ○ Interdisciplinary● We set out to produce infographic posters● "Designsprint" instead of a "Booksprint"
3. Booksprint at U of MN● Held at the University of Minnesota ○ Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and Development (OLPD)● Two Day Event (Weekend Project) ○ March 2nd and 3rd● 18 Participants (all students) from various departments ○ Design, Public Policy, Education Technology, ○ ICT4D, Social Media Experts, and other Interested Graduate and Professional Students
4. Our Booksprint: Goals● Increase awareness among educators, administrators, policymakers and other stakeholders about how technological developments affect education.● Promote openness and new forms of knowledge construction and become a model for future collaborative and creative endeavours.● Encourage exploration of possible futures for education and to promote future-oriented thinking about educational issues.● Bring together an interdisciplinary group of participants
5. Booksprint: Objectives● Alternative Futures for Education ○ Produce a series of infographic posters ○ Dynamic website for ongoing discussion● Implications of 3 emerging technologies ○ Augmented reality (AR) ○ 3D Printing ○ Robotics● Develop an Open Educational Resource ○ Share with others both the process and its productVisualize what education will look like with these technologies fully integrated
6. Booksprint: ProcessProcess differs from traditional booksprint because of theimportance of the design component:1.Concept Mapping: development of themes, concepts,ideas, visions developing ownership, etc.2.Design: development of the overall look & feel of theproduct.3.Structuring: creating headings and dividing the work.4.Messaging: distributing sections, writing and discussion,but mostly identifying key message components.5.Composition: iterative process of re-structure and re-design, checking, discussing, copy editing, and proofing.6. Publication
7. Booksprint: Workflow organizationParticipants were loosely organized into teams:Visioning teams: Articulate a vivid story about what future will look/be likeContent teams: Translate story into information to be conveyed on infographicsDesign and production team: Decide the look and feel of the infographicsWeb development team: Construct web-based platform for further info/interactionEditing team: Check all content for grammar, spelling and styleCommunication team: Update live blog about the booksprint processParticipants were encouraged to go from team to team tolearn about different aspects of the project and provideconstructive input.
8. Theoretical FrameworkCollaborative creative processes and new modes ofknowledge construction:● Communities of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) ○ Self-organizing groups ○ Mutual interests ○ Learning community● New Modes of Knowledge Production (Gibbons et al., 1994) ○ Harkins & Kubik (2006) Mode IV knowledge: "Production of knowledge for context innovations, affecting thedefinitions, descriptions, and utilizations of cultural, intellectual, and physical frameworks and settings." (p. 100)
9. Prior Booksprints- Finland - Math and Agile Textbook- Scotland, Ireland, and the USA- Booksprints.net - Sharing the Process- Openstacks | Wikibooks and other Possibilities- Siyavula and South African Textbooks
10. Open Education Movement- Open Content - David Wiley- Creative Commons - Lawrence Lessig- Open Textbooks - Richard Baraniuk- Influence of Technology in Education - MOOCs - Stephen Downes - Open Access Journals - Peter Suber - Rapid Improvements and Changes - Mobile Technology and Flexible Formatting
11. EVENT Highlights● Participants utilized a futures wheel methodology to think of the future impact of different technologies.● Participants brainstormed the potential of various technologies in transforming learning experiences.● Working in group, participants collected ideas, sources, images, phrases, and discussed which resources would be most helpful.● Most participant participated in the event for the whole day. Other wanted to but had competing commitments.
12. IMAGES FROM THE EVENT
13. Early drafts
14. Preliminary Findings Booksprint Feedback Form Avg ( 1 to 10)To what extent did the process meet your 7.25expectations?To what extent was the production a 8.13collaborative process?To what extent was the process conducive to 7.88creative outcomes?To what extent did you feel comfortable with 7.63the process?
15. Greatest Strength of the BooksprintParticipant 1 - "Bringing people who areknowledgeable / interested in a subject togetherto work on something. Everyone has a lot incommon but a lot of differences as well, making ita very enjoyable social experience"Participant 2 - "When treated as a collaborativeprocess with clearly defined outcomes, abooksprint seems to be to be quite beneficial. Ithink its most successful when the tasks andgoals at every stage are clearly outlined."
16. DESIGN ChallengeParticipant 1 - "There is also much care that must be given tomanaging time over the two days to ensure those who contributetheir skills later in the project (the graphic designers, for example)dont end up having to do a ton of work after the weekend, onceeveryone else has sprinted and gone home. That has the potentialto take away from the thrill of creative/intellectual urgency andthe ʺwere all in this togetherʺ feeling that the 2 days has."Participant 2 - "In my case, it was the time commitment. Thedesign portion is still going to require a significant amount ofwork, and Im not sure the booksprint format is very conducive forinfographic or poster creation. I also think of it in terms of formand content; while our talks focused a lot on the concept ofremote learning, the format of the booksprint seemed toreinforce the idea that a location-based group setting was the wayto get things done."
17. VIDEO RESPONSES http://flipgrid.com/#e7541b2b
18. Preliminary Findings● Shared appreciation of working together in a team with highly motivated participants.● Co-construction of knowledge and formation of communities of practice.● Shared interest in creating new knowledge.● Potential for the creation of open educational resources.● Difficulties in coordinating design needs with content needs.● Shared interest in participating in future booksprints
19. referencesBonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Dougiamas, M. & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source Course Management System.In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia andTelecommunications 2003 (pp. 171-178). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The new production of knowledge.London: Sage.Harkins, A. M. & Kubik, G. H. (2006). Leapfrogging toward the “singularity”: Innovative knowledge production on market‐drivencampuses. On the Horizon, 14(3), 99-108.Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Scharff, E. D. (2002). Open source: A conceptual framework for collaborative artifact and knowledge construction. (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2010). Openness, dynamic specialization, and the disaggregated future of higher education. The InternationalReview of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5).Wiley, D. (2010). Openness as catalyst for an educational reformation." EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4), 14-20.Wilson, D. (2003). The future of comparative and international education in a globalised world. International Review of Education,49(1), 15-33.