• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Web 2.0 and Expansive Learning: Case Study "Minerva"

Web 2.0 and Expansive Learning: Case Study "Minerva"



Presentation delivered at Online Educa Berlin 2011.

Presentation delivered at Online Educa Berlin 2011.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



5 Embeds 1,438

http://ibuchem.wordpress.com 1287
http://storify.com 125
http://paper.li 22
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 3
https://ibuchem.wordpress.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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.

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

    Web 2.0 and Expansive Learning: Case Study "Minerva" Web 2.0 and Expansive Learning: Case Study "Minerva" Presentation Transcript

    • Mediencommunity 2.0 Expansive Learning & Web 2.0: Shifts in learning culture? Case Study Minerva Dr. Ilona Buchem Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin Research project „Mediencommunity 2.0“ Online Educa Berlin 2011, 02.12.2011 Theme: NPA – New Pedagogical Approaches to Learning
    • Overview1. Mediencommunity 2.02. Expansive Learning3. Case Study „Minerva“4. Community Size5. Open Questions Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 2
    • Mediencommunity 2.0 Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 3
    • Shift in learning culture …1. Industry-wide cooperation2. Modernised vocational training3. Educational permeability Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 4
    • Media designers : Vocational SchoolFinal exams twice a year all over Germany Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 5
    • Participation?Alarm! Exam! Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 6
    • Expansive LearningLearning by expandingLearning is an „action which Klaus Holzkampdifferentiates itself from other actionsby its goal to extend ones own controlpossibilities.” Holzkamp, K. (1993). Lernen. Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung. Frankfurt/M. Campus Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 7
    • Expansive vs. defensive Learning Averting negative effects such as Expansive Learning poor grades, punishment,Extending one‘s power to act as sanctions intentional subject Foto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/letcombe/1586241141/ Defensive LearningFoto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/letcombe/1586241241/ Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 8
    • Web 2.0: Expansive LearningLearning 2.0Learner-centered design“(…) is more than just adapting for Stephen Downesdifferent learning styles or allowing the userto change the font size and background color;it is the placing of the control of learningitself into the hands of the learner.” Downes, S. (2005) E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine, Association for Computing Machinery. Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 9
    • Case Study „Minerva“Exam tasks Moderate MinervaWiki Collaborate Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 10
    • Over 400 Minerva members!Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 11
    • Who is Minerva? • 29 year old media designer • First PC with Internet at age of 12 • Fan of strategy/adventure games •Minerva Learned web design in online forums • Former archeology student • Made her hobby to her career Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 12
    • What motivates Minerva? ***What are her subjective reasons to moderate a group of peers preparing for the final exam? Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 13
    • … a virtual substitute? “ I was missing my own peer group as I was already out of school andMinerva working full time. I had no peers around that I could learn with.” Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 14
    • … a missing benchmark? “ I was unsure about what I have to learn. I did not know what the others already knew and how IMinerva compared to them.” Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 15
    • … a favorable environment “There was simply no other? possibility to set up an own group. I had the tools and the peers, whoMinerva were in the same situation like me.” Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 16
    • … role identity “I had the responsibility for leading the group. Sometimes it was? difficult , for example when I had a stressful day at work. But I knew if IMinerva did nothing, people would drop out. So I tried to contribute on regular basis.” Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 17
    • expansive learning …… starts with a subjective perception of adiscrepancy between current abilities andthe task requirements.The learner aims to Foto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltstoneburner/3372746317/master the task. Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 18
    • … prosumers? Rarely OftenConsume Produce Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 19
    • Why are they only consuming?• MISTAKE: Cautious to publish in public, because it could be a mistake and others from school would laugh at you, mock you.• QUALITY: Cautious to produce own content, because it may be incorrect and mislead others.• NORMS: Cautious to learn with/from the Internet, because books have been recommended by teachers for years.• EXPECTED UTILITY: Unwilling to invest time, energy, because unsure what this will bring, if this will be of use at all. Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 20
    • Defensive learning …… takes place in order to avert negativeeffects such as bad grades or other sanctions.The learner tries tocope with challengesWith a minimum effort. Foto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcandrelariviere/3251428624/ Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 21
    • Other reasons? Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 22
    • … almost 800 members!Allysia Allysia Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 23
    • Ringelmann effect …• Individual members of a group become less productive as the size of the group increases. http://ht.ly/7Kto9• Reason 1: Loss of motivation• Reason 2: Coordination problems Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 24
    • Social loathing …• Individuals put less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone. http://ht.ly/7KuJs• Deficit 1: Personal accountability• Deficit 2: Uniqueness of contribution Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 25
    • … subjective reasons? • “Too many cooks spoil the broth, so I better help somewhere else.” • “I seldom got any responses to myAllysia contributions or they came late”. • “ I contribute only when I am sure I can bring in my special knowledge” Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 26
    • Community size???• Critical Mass Theory: Active users produce enough content to motivate others to join.• Information Overload Theory: Contribution rates drop as user population and their contributions grow.• Social Loathing Theory: The larger the group, the less personal effort. Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 27
    • Lessons learned … Promote expansive learning • Create opportunities for taking responsibility • Foster self-organised forms of learning • Promote positive error culture Foto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/letcombe/1586241241/ Prevent social loathing • Foster sub-groups for strong membership • Assign individual members specific goals • Recognise personal, unique knowledgeFoto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/letcombe/1586241141/ Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 28
    • Open questions• How many members are needed to trigger a community? • Is effective group size dependant on the type of technology used? Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 29
    • Thank you for your attention!Mediencommunity: http://www.mediencommunity.deDr. Ilona Buchem: http://www.ibuchem.com/ Buchem/OEB2011/Case study: Minerva 30