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,…?
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?
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
From the comparatison 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
How to redesign formal education supported by new technologies? Lunch Talks (Umeå university/TUV)
Creative Learning Cultures -- Educational Innovations in a Web2.0-World Isa Jahnke [email_address] December 14, 2011 Umeå University
About me [email_address] Social Science, esp. Sociology (1997) 1998-2001 Consultant (workplace practice) 2001-2004 Informatics and Society (PhD) 2005 Disputation 2005-2007 Information & Technology Management (Post Doc) 2007 USA, Boulder (Co) 2008-2011 Center for Research on Higher Education (Ass Prof) Since 4/2011 Umeå Prof in ICT, media and learning (at TUV)
Outline Theoretical background Case studies / Projects What I want to do? [email_address]
Emerging Problems [email_address] Online Bullying/Mobbing Copyright issues and plagiarism Information with different quality is available (how to know what is good/bad?) Some teachers don’t know how to handle/adopt ICT in their classrooms => reaction: usage is not allowed at schools, BUT: “ sopa problemet under mattan ” Many people understand virtual worlds as not real => Wrong! Facebook, SecondLife etc. are examples for a social-constructed Technology-mediated reality. Social media matters for people who communicate via the Internet. Change of “who has access to knowledge” ( easy access to information anywhere, anytime via mobile devices) => increasing pressure to rethink the role of the teacher
Yes, we need to educate the “ Homo Interneticus” ! [email_address] Social construction of reality Berger & Luckmann, 1966 Homo Interneticus Aleks Krotoski, 2011 We don’t live any longer in a social-constructed world BUT we live in a social-technically constructed society But how? How to teach ‘reflections’ on Social Media? How can we teach to learn learning in the Social Media world?
Designing the interdependencies Inter-dependencies Use of Technology (Social Media) Teaching and Learning Cultures (different faculties, disciplines, subjects) Didactical approaches (e.g., How to teach creativity?) Design-Based Research Inter-actions Trans-formations [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) <ul><li>Degree of structural coupling (degree of interdependency) how close/loose are the three elements connected </li></ul><ul><li>2) Degree of quality </li></ul><ul><li>how good the three elements play together </li></ul><ul><li>3) Successful for whom? </li></ul><ul><li>different target groups and different roles (dynamical changes!) </li></ul>Jahnke, Pleul, Terkowsky, Tekkaya 2010 Suchman 1987/ 2007 Orlikowski, 1996 Coakes, 2002 Herrmann/Loser/Jahnke 2007 [email_address]
Development over time CBT 1980… CSCL 1995… Social Media (Web 2.0) 2004… … Educational mash-ups Mobile Learning 2011... Jahnke 2009, STC in: Whitworth ‘ s Handbook Jahnke 2006, presentation in York, UK [email_address]
Theoretical background <ul><li>Mediatization (e.g., Hjarvard 2008; Krotz 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Media-constructed social awareness ( Medialitätsbewusstsein ) </li></ul><ul><li>Objective facticity (Berger & Luckmann 1966) </li></ul><ul><li>Socio-technical approach (e.g., Coakes 2002; Fischer 2005; Herrmann et al., 2004). </li></ul><ul><li>Complexity theory (e.g., Dugdale 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>New media affects society (“media is integrated into the operations of social institutions”,) but on the other hand society designs new forms of communication. </li></ul><ul><li>Media is formed by society but also became an active agent which influences human interactions. </li></ul><ul><li>People live in a media-constructed world where we have a difference between “reality” and “reality given by different media”. To know this and to handle this in the classroom is one aspect of media competency. </li></ul><ul><li>Complex problem: technical, social and didactical developments are required simultaneously </li></ul>[email_address] Jahnke et al. (submitted), conference paper
Socio-technical paradigm – what we already know duality of structures Giddens 1984 from IS [email_address] <ul><li>Coakes (2002), knowledge management; Emery & Trist (1964), E. 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>
Socio-technical paradigm what we already know <ul><li>CSCL: co-construction of knowledge (e.g., Koschmann, Stahl, Suthers, Dillenbourg 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Socio-technical Communities (e.g., Wenger et al., 2002; Jahnke, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Role dynamics (Jahnke, 2010) -position, -actor ’s activities/tasks, -implicit/explicit expectations, -concrete role-playing </li></ul>[email_address] from “learning sciences”
Methodology: Design-Based Research (adapted from Action Research) Reeves, Herrington & Oliver 2005 Wang & Hannafin, 2005 Avison et al., 1999 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 [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>CSCL@Work (2010-2012), together with Sean Goggins (USA) </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 a BMBF research program 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>[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 [email_address]
[email_address] 1. Learning Modules (interactive tasks) 2. Preparing and doing an EXP 3. Reflections (learners write a report, get reviews)
DaVINCI Creativity can be learnt! - How to design such a learning? <ul><li>Title Creativity in (Technology-Enhanced) learning; BMBF 2008-2011, together with Bochum U, Germany </li></ul><ul><li>Methods/phases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviews with 20 outstanding & ”normal” teachers (2009)Online survey for teachers and students (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creating ‘creative learning scenarios‘ for the classroom (2010)Creating ‘workshops for teachers’ (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of intervention / redesign (2010-2011) </li></ul></ul>[email_address] Jahnke & Haertel, 2010, Hochschulwesen
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,…) How to design higher education “when the answer to a problem is not known” ? (G. Fischer, 2011)
6-aspects-model: fostering creativity in higher education e.g., Jahnke & Haertel, 2010 What is a creative effort of your students? [email_address]
Fostering creativity by.... ...by supporting the ability to work/organize autonomously (A2) ...by enabling to get original, entirely new ideas (A6) ...by supporting a new thinking; enabling multi-perspectives (A5) ...by self-reflecting & srcutinizing established „things “ (A1) ...by designing & constructing things (A4) ...by fostering ‚research curiosity ’ & motivation (A3) It doesn ‘ t match n=587, multiple answers in percent
[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. 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. <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. constructive learning … where students create something ; enable creation of interconnections, projects, planning a conference, create a teaching course, create a small research group, … <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. 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 <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. 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. <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. 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 <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 given task </li></ul>
InPUD (2001-2009) <ul><li>In formatics P ortal U niversity of D ortmund = InPUD </li></ul><ul><li>= online community for students in CS </li></ul><ul><li>= 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 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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, 2006 Jahnke 2008, Krems & Journal CiHB, 2010 [email_address] Designing designing, development continuing improvements
InPuD – online learning community [email_address] InPUD Portal Foren www.inpud.de
Study management services (examples) Courses (examples) Discussion boards (Forum)
InPuD: 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]
We also studied… <ul><li>Reasons for lurking / reading only </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Questions are already there” (32%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I am afraid of asking sth.” (17%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information source, up-to-date (16%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No motivation (15%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions are clarified on other ways (12%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ No special topics where I can say sth” (8%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reasons for writing/posting contributions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I need answers/solutions” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I help other students, I hope they help me later when I have problems” ; “ That ’ s the meaning of a community, we help each other ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Only active members affect vivid discussion” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Getting in contact with others at unusual time slots” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Because of the anonymity, I can ask stupid questions” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NEW: Criticizing deficiencies “I want to show my anger about problems” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NEW: Gaining attention: “The professor will be aware of me when I’m active”; “Sometimes, I want to say something” </li></ul></ul>[email_address] Jahnke, 2010 ijSKD
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 und 5 = higly disagree * = significance; 95%- confidence interval => Scale: mean 2002: 3.0 <-> mean 2009: 2.0 Jahnke, 2010 ijSKD [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 does a student 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>[email_address]
InPUD shows… <ul><li>Knowledge sharing suported by a DISCUSSION BOARD is useful for specific tasks </li></ul><ul><li>Such a communitiy is an effective supplement to formal learning </li></ul><ul><li>Learning needs a balance of fo rmal and informal environments </li></ul><ul><li>Possible explanations… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>STC supports flexibility (flexible learning) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>just-in-time-learning; anywhere, anytime </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It makes it easier to engage users; integration of weakly coupled users </li></ul></ul>[email_address]
What to do in the future? [email_address] Learning with Mobile Devices => Understanding, reflecting, designing learning spaces, the “classrooms” of tomorrow
RQ mobile learning <ul><li>a) How can a teacher use new technologies in her/his learning settings? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a benefit? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What problems will occur? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>b) When to use what kind of learning environment? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For what educational purposes is a specific technology (e.g., mobile devices) a good choice but when do we need other technology (could we combine them, creating new didactical approaches, new technology?) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>c) What is the “classroom” (learning space) of tomorrow (equipment, didactics, virtual…)? </li></ul><ul><li>d) What are learning outcomes and skills of students? </li></ul><ul><li>=> To find answers to these questions: </li></ul><ul><li>We want to create a “research and teaching center of mobile learning” </li></ul>[email_address] If you’re interested in such a research, please let us know
Learning supported by mobile devices – starting several research/teaching activities [email_address] <ul><li>We started a group on “ML” (meetings) </li></ul><ul><li>Odder/Denmark project </li></ul><ul><li>ML at Umeå schools </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot-study: Redesigning a course at TUV using iPads (for students) </li></ul><ul><li>Study on “who are our students in ICT courses?” </li></ul><ul><li>A program especially for IT-pedagogues, ICT-teachers? </li></ul>Collaborators: Carina Granberg, Krister Lindwall, Leif Marklund, Andreas Olsson, Peter Vinnervik, Peter Bergström, Eva Mårell-Olsson, Sebastian Bardt, …
Publications & slides – online! = http://webnode.isajahnke.com Selection Isa Jahnke (2011): How to Foster Creativity in Technology Enhanced Learning. In B. White, I. King, & Ph. Tsang (Eds.), Social Media Tools and Platforms in Learning Environments: Present and Future. Springer. pp. 95-116, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-20392-3_6. Claudius Terkowsky, Christian Pleul, Isa Jahnke & A. Erman Tekkaya (2011): Platform for E-Learning and Telemetric Experimentation (PeTEX). Tele-Operated Laboratories for Production Engineering Education. In Proceedings IEEE EDUCON 2011, Amman/Jordan --- Winner of Best Paper Award. Isa Jahnke (2010): A way out of the information jungle – a longitudinal study on a socio-technical community and informal learning in higher education . In: International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), No. 4, pp. 18-38. http://files.isajahnke.webnode.com/200000006-a0d2ba1cc5/isajahnke-2010.pdf Isa Jahnke (2010): Dynamics of social roles in a knowledge management community. In: Computers in Human Behavior. International Journal. Oxford (UK): Elsevier, 26 (2010), pp. 533-546. DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.010 Isa Jahnke & Michael Koch (2009): Web 2.0 goes academia: Does Web 2.0 make a difference? In International Journal Web Based Communities, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2009, pp. 484-500.
Thanks! <ul><li>Isa Jahnke (Dr. phil.) </li></ul><ul><li>Professor in ICT, Media and Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Umeå University </li></ul><ul><li>Dep of Applied Educational Science </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>http://webnode.isajahnke.com </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.facebook.com/isajahnke </li></ul>[email_address]