The meta-design approach for courses in open learning ecosystems

1. Meta‐design principles for open
learning ecosystems
Kai Pata
Tallinn University,
Ins;tute of Informa;cs
Center for Educa;onal Technology
MUPPLE Lecture Series, 2011

2. An overview
• What is an eco‐cogni;ve view to learning?
– The examples of open learning ecosystems in
course design
– The learning niches and how to use them in
learning design
– Why to use the meta‐design approach?
– The meta‐design approach to open learning
ecosystems
– Some developments and limita;ons for meta‐
design from the soFware side

3. Open learning ecosystems
• Open learning ecosystem is an open, adap;ve
complex and dynamic learning system in
which self‐directed learners design their
learning ac;vi;es and follow open educa;on
principles by sharing freely over the internet
knowledge, ideas, infrastructure and teaching
methodology using Web 2.0 soFware.

4. Par;cle and system level views to open
learning ecosystems
Learners in open learning “Ecosystem” not as a metaphor
ecosystems:
• Self‐direc;ng • Self‐regula;ve
• Networking, PLEs, PLNs • “Connec;vist Networks” in open
learning ecosystems
• Communi;es of open • “Community” of digital cultures
educa;on
• Co‐designing and sharing • Open, Dynamic and Evolving
• Accumula;ng
• Monitoring • An evolu;onary feedback loop
• Adap;ng
• Naviga;ng

5. Towards the learner‐centered
approach
• Two pedagogical paradigms have been
highlighted in open learning ecosystems.
• Firstly, the interpre;vist learning principles
suggest that students should be:
– guided towards becoming independent, autonomous
and self‐directed learners)
– who learn from being ac;vely engaged in the
situa;ons that are meaningful to them, from their
interac;ons with peers and teachers in which they are
given the voice so they that they can become co‐
constructers of the learning environment
– and by reflec;ng on their prior knowledge and
experiences to construct new meanings

6. An example course
ICamp interna;onal eLearning course (Pata & Merisalo, 2010)

7. Towards the learner‐centered
approach
• Secondly, for cul;va;ng the “ecosystem” view
in digital systems (see Pór & Molloy, 2000;
Crabtree & Rodden, 2007; Boley & Chang,
2007), George Siemens (2006) formulated the
Connec;vism framework as the new learning
theory for open learning ecosystems.
• Connec;vism assumes that:
– Learning is primarily a network‐forming process,
and the dynamically appearing and changing
networks form basis for the learning ecosystems

8. An example course
Ecology of narra;ves course (Pata & Fuksas, 2009
hap://padis2.uniroma1.it:81/ojs/index.php/cogphil/ar;cle/view/4338/4200

9. A gap in design principles for open
learning ecosystems
• Without wishing to suppress down such a
boaom‐up self‐emergence of eLearning
designs, we should provide teachers in
learning ins;tu;ons with design solu;ons that
enable them to regain some co‐control in the
learner‐ini@ated ac@vi@es and systems is
needed (Fiedler and Pata, 2009).

10. A gap in design principles for open
learning ecosystems
• The teachers’ need to control the learning
design and learning process in distributed
systems
• The necessity to allow freedom for learners
to be self‐directed and using their own
personal learning environments in higher
educa;on courses

11. Offloading cogni;ve func;ons to the
digital ecosystem
• Humans constantly delegate cogni@ve
func@ons to the environment (Bardone, 2011)

12. An eco‐cogni;ve view to learning
• Human cogni@on is chance‐seeking system that is
developed within an evolu;onary framework
based on the no;on of cogni@ve niche
construc@on.
• We build and manipulate cogni@ve niches so as to
unearth addi@onal resources for behavior control.
• Human cogni;ve behavior consists in ac@ng upon
anchors – the affordances* (*see Gibson, 1977) ‐
which we have secured a cogni@ve func@on to via
cogni;ve niche construc;on.
(Bardone, 2011)

13. Distributed cogni;on and affordances
Learning as a cogni;ve niche Previous ac;on
environment as experiences in this
digital ecosystem environment
Teachers’ goals Learners’ goals
and and perceived
instruc;ons for ac;on
ac;on poten;ali;es
A cogni;ve niche
Schema adopted from Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006)

14. Learning affordances and PLE
• PLEs are dynamically evolving Ac@vity systems* (*see
Engeström, 1987) in which the personal objec@ves
and human and material resources are integrated in
the course of ac;on.
• PLE is also distributed ecologically, integra@ng our
minds with the environment (see Zhang & Patel, 2006;
Bardone, 2011).
Different learning goals assume the
percep;on of different affordances in PLE

15. Affordances as a networked system?
• Affordances may
constrain each other
• Synergy may be arrived
from using several
affordances
simultaneously
• Some affordances may
need the presence or the
co‐ac;va;on of other
affordances to be used
effec;vely
• Using one affordance
may actualize another
affordance in the network

16. Defining community niches by
affordances
• People determine the personal learning
affordances within their PLEs.
• Any individual conceptualizes affordances
personally, but the range of similar learning
affordance conceptualiza;ons visualizes
community’s preferences – a community
learning niche

17. Affordances in a community

18. The learning niches
• Adapta;on ‐ the adjustment of an organism to its
environment in the process by which it enhances fitness to its
niche
• The forma;on of learning niches in open learning
ecosystems appears through accumula;ng
learning affordances from PLEs (Pata, 2009).
• The community’s affordances may be interpreted
and used by each learner to best adapt to the
community niche for certain goal‐based ac;on

19. Earlier models that use affordances in learning
design
Learner’s role is
passive, design is
created by the
teacher.
Learning
environment not
dynamically evolving.
Kirschner et al. (2004)

20. Why meta‐design approach?
• The ecological Meta‐Design framework applies
for open learning ecosystems that are adap;ve
and dynamically changing.
• Meta‐design is designing the design process for
cultures of par;cipa;on – crea;ng technical and
social condi;ons for broad par;cipa;on in design
ac;vi;es (Fisher et al., 2004).
• The meta‐design approach is directed to the
forma;on and evolu;on of open learning
ecosystems through the end‐user design.

21. Meta‐design approach
• The meta‐design approach is known as a methodology
for collabora;ve co‐design of social, technical and
economic infrastructures in interdisciplinary teams in
order to achieve synergy similarly to the symbiosis
phenomena in natural environments.
• The meta‐design, known from End User Design in
computer science, extends the tradi;onal no;on of
system development to include users in an ongoing
process as co‐designers, not only at design ;me but
throughout the en@re existence of the system (Fisher
et al., 2004).

22. Meta‐design approaches
• Autonomous and self‐organized designers in
meta‐design framework can increase the
diversity of design solu;ons in the system,
allowing diversity and variability to emerge
within the ecosystem.
• The open, community‐driven, emergent and
itera;ve ac;vity sequences in the learning
design process models are based on learner
contribu;on (Hagen & Robertson, 2009).

23. Meta‐design approaches
Hagen & Robertson (2009)

24. Ecological principles in meta‐design
• Learning in the cultures of par;cipa;on may be
characterized as the process in which learner and
the system (community, culture) detects and
corrects errors in order to fit and be responsive
(Fisher et al., 2004).
• In this defini;on, learning process is
conceptualized as largely self‐organized,
adap@ve and dynamic.
• It may be assumed that such learning follows the
ecological principles

25. Some principles of meta‐design
• Both focuses – the learning ecosystem
evolu@on by end‐user design, and nourishing
the end‐user design process by crea;ng the
scaffolds for designing (Fisher et al., 2004), are
equally important aspects of ecological Meta‐
Design.

26. Suitable
The process view to meta‐design in open learning ecosystems (Pata, 2010)

27. Learners’ role
• In learning ecosystems autonomous learners
con;nuously develop and dynamically change
design solu;ons to support their learning.
• They incorporate into their personal learning
environments different Web 2.0 tools,
networking partners and ar;facts, and monitor
the state of the whole learning ecosystem to
adapt their design solu;ons and learning
objec;ves to the system and to other learners.

28. Teachers’ role
• Providing the teacher‐created scaffolds and
incen;ves for the learners' design ac;vi;es that
would foster the accumula;on of learning niches:
– a) monitor the evolu;on of the open learning ecosystem,
– b) provide learners with the op;ons that enhance and
speed up the self‐directed network‐forma;on process
(e.g. tags, mashups),
– c) analyze the emerging affordances within the learning
community, and provide analy;cal guidance for them
aiding to make design decisions and selec;ng learning
ac;vi;es (e.g. social naviga;on, seman;c naviga;on), and
– d) seed learning ac;vi;es into the open learning
ecosystem that are based on self‐organiza;on (e.g.
swarming).

29. The limita;ons for applying meta‐
design in an open learning ecosystem
• There is the need for dynamic accumula@on
and monitoring systems for learning niche
forma@on to be used by each learner for
benefi;ng from par;cular open learning
ecosystem and allowing them to par;cipate in
the course design
– accumulated affordances and their dissipa;on in
;me (community‘s learning niche)
– real‐;me awareness of affordances for other
learners (their cogni;ve niches)

30. Connec;vity with PLE components
(Dippler, Tallinn University
development)
Distributed course
assembling tools
(Dippler)
Learning contract
tools (LeContract,
Learning creator
(Siadty et a.l, 2011),) User monitoring,
accumula;on and
visualiza;on
Suitable
Monitoring tools (EduFeedr
(Põldoja & Laanpere, 2009))
The tools to support meta‐design in open learning ecosystems (Pata, 2011)

31. Kai Pata
senior researcher,
Tallinn University, Ins;tute of Informa;cs,
Center for Educa;onal Technology
kpata@tlu.ee,
blog hap://;hane.wordpress.com

32. References
• Bardone, E. (2011). Seeking Chances. From Biased Ra;onality to Distributed Cogni;on. Springer, Heidelberg.
• Boley, H., & Chang, E. (2007). Digital Ecosystems: Principles and Seman;cs, published at the 2007 Inaugural IEEE Interna;onal Conference on
Digital Ecosystems and Technologies. Cairns, Australia. February 2007. NRC 48813.
• Crabtree, A., & Rodden, T. (2007). Hybrid ecologies: understanding interac;on in emerging digital‐physical environments. Personal and Ubiquitous
Compu;ng, Online First: DOI 10.1007/s00779‐007‐0142‐7.
• Fiedler, S,; Pata, K. (2009). Distributed learning environments and social soFware: in search for a framework of design. In Stylianos Hatzipanagos and
Steven Warburton (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Social SoFware and Developing Community Ontologies. (145 ‐ 158). Idea Group Reference.
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Ac;vity‐Theore;cal Approach to Developmental Research (
hap://communica;on.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm).
• Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E. Ye,Y., Sutcliffe,A.G., Mehandjiev, N. (2004). META‐DESIGN: A MANIFESTO FOR END‐USER DEVELOPMENT. COMMUNICATIONS
OF THE ACM September 2004/Vol. 47, No. 9 (33‐37 .
• Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds.), Perceiving, Ac;ng and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hagen, P. and Robertson, T. (2009
Dissolving boundaries: social technologies and par@cipa@on in design. Proceedings of OZCHI 2009, ISBN: 978‐1‐60558‐854‐4
• Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collabora;ve learning environments. Educa;onal Technology Research
and Development 52(3), 47–66. Pata, K. (2009). Modeling spaces for self‐directed learning at university courses. Educa;onal Technology & Society, 12
(3), 23–43.
• Pata, K., Fuksas, A. P. (2009). Ecology of Embodied Narra;ves in the Age of Loca;ve Media and Social Networks: a Design Experiment. Cogni;ve
Philology, 2, 1 ‐ 21.
• Pata, K.; Merisalo, S. (2010). SELF‐DIRECTION INDICATORS FOR EVALUATING THE DESIGN‐BASED ELEARNING COURSE WITH SOCIAL SOFTWARE. Dirk
Ifenthaler, Dr. Kinshuk, Pedro Isaias, Demetrios G. Sampson, J. Michael Spector (Eds.). Mul;ple Perspec;ves on Problem Solving and Learning in the
Digital Age (343 ‐358).Springer
• Pór, G., & Molloy, J. (2000). Nurturing Systemic Wisdom Through Knowledge Ecology. Systems Thinker, 1 (8), 1–5.
• Põldoja, H., Laanpere, M. (2009). Conceptual Design of EduFeedr ‐ an Educa;onally Enhanced Mash‐up Tool for Agora Courses. In: Mashup Personal
Learning Environments: MuPPLE 09, Nizza, 29.September 2009. (Eds.) Fridolin Wild, Marco Kalz, Maahias Palmér, Daniel Müller. Aachen (online):,
2009, (CEUR Workshop Proceedings; 506).
• Siadaty, M., Gasevic, D., Pata, K., Milikic, N., Holocher‐Ertl, T. (2011). A Sema;c Web‐enabled Tool for Self‐Regulated Learning in the Workplace. iCALT
2011 proceedings (xxx‐xxx). Athens, Georgia, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press [in press]
• Siemens, G. (2006) Knowing knowledge. URL. hap://www.knowingknowledge.com/2006/10/knowing_knowledge_pdf_files.php
• Zhang, J. & Patel, V.L. (2006). Distributed cogni;on, representa;on, and affordance. Distributed Cogni;on: Special issue of Pragma;cs & Cogni;on 14,
333‐341.