• Save
Isajahnke 2011-06-17-short - Creative Learning Cultures, educational innovations in a Web 2.0 world
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Isajahnke 2011-06-17-short - Creative Learning Cultures, educational innovations in a Web 2.0 world



How to design (develop & evaluate) sociotechnical-educational learning

How to design (develop & evaluate) sociotechnical-educational learning
successfully? What is "successful" for whom? What elements can be designed? What R&D methods are appropriate?



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Social structues, sociological point of view
  • Social structues, sociological point of view
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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?

Isajahnke 2011-06-17-short - Creative Learning Cultures, educational innovations in a Web 2.0 world Isajahnke 2011-06-17-short - Creative Learning Cultures, educational innovations in a Web 2.0 world Presentation Transcript

  • Creative Learning Cultures educational innovations in a Web2.0-world Isa Jahnke [email_address] June, 17, 2011 Umeå, Presentation at Dep of Education
  • Theoretical background Case studies / Projects Who I am? About me… What I want to do? Overview [email_address]
  • About me [email_address] Social Science, esp. Sociology (1997) 3 years at Consultancy company (knowledge management) 2001-2004 Informatics and Society (PhD) 2005 Disputation 2005-2007 Information & Technology Management (Post Doc) 2007 USA, Boulder (Co) 2008-2011 Center for Higher Education (Ass Prof) Since 4/2011 Umeå Prof in ICT, media and learning (at TUV)
  • 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) [email_address]
  • Designing the interdependencies Inter-dependencies Use of Technology (Social Media) Teaching and Learning Cultures (different faculties, disciplines, subjects) Didactical approaches (e.g., fostering creativity) Design-Based Research Inter-actions Trans-actions [email_address]
  • Research question How to design (develop & evaluate) sociotechnical-educational 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 [email_address]
  • What does “successful” mean? (regarding computer-enhanced learning)
    • Degree of structural coupling (degree of interdependency) how close/loose are the three elements connected
    • 2) Degree of quality
    • how good the three elements play together
    • 3) Successful for whom?
    • different target groups and different roles (dynamical changes!)
    Jahnke, Pleul, Terkowsky, Tekkaya 2010 Suchman 1987/ 2007 Orlikowski, 1996 Coakes, 2002 Herrmann/Loser/Jahnke 2007 [email_address]
  • Socio-technical paradigm – what we already know
    • Coakes (2002), knowledge management; Emery & Trist (1964), Mumford (2000)
    • The study of the relationships and interrelationships between the social and technical parts of any systems / equal weight to social and technical issues
    • Suchman (1987), workplace studies STS research = how people use ICT in social interactions/actions
    • “ Situated action ” = focusing on concrete situations where people use technology (technology development without regarding social context tend to fail)
    • Orlikowski (1996) Metamorphoses of technology usage over time (duality of technology)
    • Herrmann, Loser, Jahnke (2007)
    • Communication (in “situated action”) generates new structures and regulations...
      • which form (coin) the technical system/structures
      • which are partially determined by the technical system
    duality of structures Giddens 1984 from IS [email_address]
  • Socio-technical paradigm what we already know
    • Socio-technical approach / CSCW (e.g., Data/information/Knowledge, Willke 2001; knowledge management systems, Coakes 2002; G. Fischer 2007)
    • CSCL: co-construction of knowledge (e.g., Koschmann, Stahl, Suthers, Dillenbourg 2003)
    • + Socio-technical Communities/STC (e.g., Communities of practice, Wenger & et al. 2002; Online communities, Preece, 2000)
    • Analyzing/Dev “roles” as small group interactions! Roles = interaction patterns include..
    • -position, -actor ’s activities/tasks, -implicit/explicit expectations, -concrete role-playing
    • Workshop organization, France, COOP 2008
    • Guest editor IJWBC 2009 with Piet Kommers/NL
    • Jahnke & Koch 2009, E-CSCW, Web 2.0 goes academia
    • Workshop with G. Fischer, Boulder (Co), GROUP 2010
    • CSCL 2009, Greece; Jahnke 2009
    • Presentation in York/UK 2006;
    • Jahnke 2010, GMW;
    • Guest Editor IJSKD (Coakes, UK) with Ulbrich/Canada & Mårtensson/Sweden ( “Knowledge Development and the Net Generation in HE”), IJSKD 2010
    • Presentation in Washington DC, 2005
    • Jahnke 2006, Dissertation
    • EARLI Budapest 2007, with Jan-W. Strijbos/NL;
    • Jahnke 2010, Journal “Computers in Human Behavior”
  • Methodology: Design-Based Research Reeves, Herrington & Oliver 2005 Wang & Hannafin, 2005 Analysis (Evaluation,…) Design (Development,…)
    • Data collection / - analysis
    • Methods:
    • Interviews
    • participant observation
    • questionnaires
    • login files
    • evaluation
    Changing practice [email_address]
  • Research projects
    • DaVINCI, BMBF, 2008-2011 creativity
    • PeTEX, EU, 2009-2010 online learning
    • InPUD, TUD 2001-2009 community cultures
    • MARIS, BMBF, 2005-2008 --- case studies, knowledge management, production processes
    • eGOV, 2006-2007 Informationsbüro d-NRW --- study about electronic government trends, actors, topics
    • WINK, BMWI, 2005-2007 --- formative evaluation of 7 knowledge media projects
    • EVAL, BMBF, 2005-2006 --- “knowledge loops” of BMBF research programs and –projects, summative and formative evaluation
    • LearnDO, BMBF,2002-2004 --- learning region Dortmund, knowledge sharing with BSCW
    • Werk-Stadt Dortmund, SFS-KOWA, 2002 --- socio-technical web design of regional networks; Dortmund, study of participatory design via Internet
  • PeTEX
    • Platform for eLearning and Telemetric Experimentations Production Engineering
      • EU, 2008-2010, Partners: Stockholm KTH, Palermo DTMPIG
      • 3 Labs: Tensile test, compression test (semi- and fully-automatic), Friction stir welding (semi-automatic); Milling process (semi-automatic)
    • RQ: How to design live-experiments embedded into online learning?
      • Developing tele-operated experiments including video-supported, web-based interfaces to the labs
      • embedded into a LMS (Moodle)
      • with peer-reviewed feedback (Blogs, “reflective learning”)
    • Method:
      • Design-based research (DBR) with modeling method
      • Midterm evaluation with experts (2009)
      • Final evaluation (2010)
    Jahnke et al. 2009 DELFI conf [email_address]
  • [email_address]
  • [email_address] 1. Learning Modules (interactive tasks) 2. Preparing and doing an EXP 3. Reflective learning (learners write a report, get reviews)
  • DaVINCI Creativity can be learnt! - How to design this learning process?
    • Title Creativity in (Technology-Enhanced) learning; BMBF 2008-2011, together with Bochum U, Germany
    • Methods/phases
      • Interviews with 20 outstanding & ”normal” teachers (2009)Online survey for teachers and students (2010)
      • Creating ‘creative learning scenarios‘ for the classroom (2010)Creating ‘workshops for teachers’ (2010)
      • Evaluation of intervention / redesign (2010-2011)
  • Creativity = Knowledge and experience from different areas will be merged --- into new ideas --- while overcoming solidified structures and established “ old ” thought patterns. [email_address] Innovation = research field of “acceptance of new ideas” (social factors, power, roles, experts,…)
  • 6-facets-model: fostering creativity in higher education Jahnke &Haertel, 2010 Journal “Das Hochschulwesen” 50% 62% 42% 47% 55% 56% Answers n =587 What is a creative effort by your students? [email_address]
  • [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.
    • Showing, using new ways of solutions
    • Students create new relations (between existing topics)
    • Unusual, original topics for presentations etc.
    • A new „story “ about a research topic
    5. Fostering a new culture of thinking Change of perspective, learn to have multi-perspectives on one topic, 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.
    • Several perspectives on one topic (multiple perspect.)
    • Deviances from standards and routines
    • Relations to different disciplines
    4. Fostering constructive learning … where students create something ; enable creation of interconnections, projects, planning a conference, create a teaching course, create a small research group, …
    • 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
    3. Fostering research curiosity / motivation to learn Enabling situated learning, use experiences of students, developing interesting ways to pose questions or identify problems ; richness/variety; establish a link to practice; use of metaphors, humor
    • Students use their own experiences (e.g., experiences as student worker, from school etc.)…
    • … and integrate these into lectures, courses
    • Students are fascinated from the topics
    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 his/her own processes of learning; enabling to make one's own decisions.
    • Students develop own research questions and choose a topic autonomously
    • Students work on the topic and organize the learning process self-controlled and autonomously
    • They create own learning outcomes
    1. Fostering independent, self-reflective learning Learner constructs knowledge rather than adopting it; enabling students to hold an internal dialog, breaking out of a receptive posture , supporting lateral and critical thinking
    • critical thinking, when students think about (quality of discussion contributions)
    • not repetitive
    • Students identify stereotypes, assumption, …
    • They do more than given task
  • InPUD (2001-2009)
    • In formatics P ortal U niversity of D ortmund = InPUD, a socio-technical community (STC) for students in CS
    • launched 2002
    • RQ: How to design knowledge management about study organization?
    • Methods:
      • Open-ended interviews (with students and teachers, professors, study advisors) before the STC was initiated (2001-2002) -> reveal student ’ s problems
      • Standardized questionnaires before launching the STC ( 2002 ) and seven years later (2009) - online survey
      • Participant observation supplemented with interviews (in particular 2002-2004)
    Jahnke Diss 2006 Jahnke 2008, Krems & Journal CiHB, 2010 [email_address] Designing designing, development continuing improvements
  • 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 [email_address]
    • Improvements by InPUD
    • When to attend what courses
    • How to combine lectures, tutorials, practical courses etc
    • Who is responsible for what in the department
    • Getting in contact with other students
    • How many hours does a student need to complete the course
    • When to expect problems
    Improvements & side-by effects
    • No effects (no improvements by InPUD)
    • When and how to prepare for what examinations
    • How important a lecture/course is for the studies/job/competence development etc.
  • InPUD shows…
    • InPUD study shows
    • Knowledge sharing is more effective with an online DISCUSSION BOARD than with Web 1.0 conditions only
    • Such a Comm. is an effective supplement to formal learning
    • Learning needs a balance of fo rmal and informal environments
    • Possible explanations…
      • STC supports flexibility (flexible learning)
      • just-in-time-learning; anywhere, anytime
      • It makes it easier to engage users; integration of weakly coupled users
  • 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 What I want to do? Research about…. [email_address]
  • People Process embedded into institutional cultures Fostering creativity in Technology-Enhanced learning cultures Research program [email_address] Skills, competencies (e.g., i-literacies, creative thinking/actions) Students (the reflective student/learning groups; „Being 3.0 “ ) a Teachers (professional development ICTML!) b
    • Designing new courses & scenarios => mobile lab!
    • „ Master of ICTML in higher education “ (new program?)
    c Classroom Assessment Techniques e (Student ‘ s) Evaluation of teaching f Informal & formal learning (lifelong learning) d How to bring innovations into practice? g
  • 2 Phd positions
    • Mobile Learning at schools
    • How to enable learning at schools with mobile devices (e.g. tablet PCs)?
    • Does using a tablet PC affect the ability to learn among students and with regard to the teachers? To what extent?
    • b) Creative learning cultures
    • How to build and foster creative groups?
    • To what extent are computational tools useful to foster creativity in learning processes? How to design such innovative tools that encourage nonlinear, non-standard thinking and problem-solving, as well as the exploration and generation of new knowledge?
  • [email_address] Edited book, S. Goggins, i. Jahnke & V. Wulf (2011), in preparation Learning is no longer an activity that is separate from work... A conceptual framework… www.csclatwork.org Goggins & Jahnke, 2011, submitted to ijCSCL [email_address]
  • IML2011 symposium
    • IML2011
    • Interactive Media and Learning
    • Creative Learning Cultures – Educational Innovations in a Web 2.0 World
    • 21-22 September 2011
    • Website
    • http://symp.edusci.umu.se
    • 11 invited outstanding exerts
    • Gerhard Fischer, USA
    • Barbara Wasson, Norway
    • Thomas Herrmann, Germany
    • Scott Wilson, UK
    • George Siemens, Canada
    • Jennifer Masters, Australia
    • Kirsten Drotner, Denmark
  • Thanks for your attention!
    • Publications?
    • Please ask, I send it to you
    • Online
    • http://www.isa-jahnke.de