Uploaded byIsa Jahnke
Studying Learning Expeditions in Crossactionspaces with Digital Didactical Designs
The document discusses Dr. Isa Jahnke's research on digital didactical designs in higher education, emphasizing the integration of web-enabled technologies and crossactionspaces that merge online and material learning environments. It outlines various projects and grants aimed at fostering deeper, meaningful learning experiences through collaborative and reflective practices. Additionally, it highlights the evolving roles of students and teachers as they navigate new instructional designs and the impact of technology on social interactions in educational settings.
More Related Content
Similar to Studying Learning Expeditions in Crossactionspaces with Digital Didactical Designs
More from Isa Jahnke
Studying Learning Expeditions in Crossactionspaces with Digital Didactical Designs
- 1. @isaja Prof. Dr. IsaJahnke EDEN Research WS October, 6, 2016 Studying Learning Expeditions in CrossActionSpaces with Digital Didactical Designs
- 2. @isaja iSchool.missouri.edu & EdTech.missouri.edu EducationalTechnology – Master study program @ Mizzou fully online (started 1999 with first course online)
- 3.
- 4. @isaja My research (selection) inhigher education - InPUD, technology-embraced informal-in-formal learning (Germany, NRW grant), 2001-2004 (-2009) (Jahnke, 2012) - DaVINCI, creativity in higher ed (German BMBF grant) 2008-2011 (Jahnke, Haertel, & Wildt, 2015) - PeTEX , Remote Labs in Engineering Education (EU, European Commission grant) (Jahnke et al., 2010, Terkowsky et al., 2011) - GoogleGlass project in higher education, Eva Marell-Ohlsson (Jahnke, Marell-Ohlsson, Meitoft, 2016) - LeX, Augmented Learning eXpeditions (started 2015, University of Missouri) (Ringbauer et al., 2016) in K-12 - iPad studies (Swedish, VR funded, 2014-2016) (Jahnke et al., 2014) Interdisciplinary: Social Sciences, Computer Science, Educational Sciences Intercultural: Germany, Sweden, USA
- 5. @isaja Question to you Whois using a device with Internet access? Perfect!
- 6. @isaja Web-enabled technologies (tablets,wearables…) change ways and conditions for human/social interaction***: how we communicate, share, receive information, collaborate, network, ...
- 7. @isaja Human interaction ->crossaction (I look at interaction as a form of communication – N. Luhmann) Crossaction • The example of conferences when participants use Twitter • Humans connect to each other’s resources, • no clear difference between offline and online, • ’in’ different places at same time (Instagram, Twitter, …). Photo: Ralf Jahnke-Wachholz Floridi, 2014 Jahnke, 2016
- 8. @isaja Classroom / School Classroom / School Digitalclassroom: Spaces Merging We go to school because of getting access to learning processes Twitter, FB, GroupApps, … Interactive/Live Broadcasting, … Websites, Blogs, … and more Traditional classroom: Separation We went to school because of getting access to information View 1: Classroom perspective CrossActionSpaces
- 9. @isaja Online Course (Canvas, Moodle,…) Online Course (Canvas, Moodle,…) Spaces Are Merging Learners applyclassroom themes to the material world (communities) in which they are living Twitter, FB, GroupApps, … Interactive/Live Broadcasting, … Websites, Blogs, … and more Traditional: Separation Online vs. material world around the learners View 2: Online classroom perspective Material world Material world CrossActionSpaces
- 10. @isaja What ‘is’ learning(cognitive, but socially framed) in crossactionspaces? Photo: Ralf Jahnke-Wachholz Reflections = people interact, make choices and decisions and can explain why they are doing it what they are doing, and why this is useful for their learning progress • reflective doing of multiply crossactions • reflective performance of crossactions • reflective communication Jahnke, 2016
- 11. @isaja Learning Expeditions How todesign for Learning in CrossActionSpaces? Learners use classroom themes and connect them to the (socio-)material world in which they are living: Design for Learning Expeditions (Ringbauer et al., 2016; Jahnke & Norberg, 2013), Sociomateriality (Tessy Ceratto-Pargman et al., 2015)
- 12. @isaja What kinds of‘designs for learning’ are applied/supported in the practice of online classes and in crossactionspaces? Surface/shallow learning (focus on remembering)? Deeper Learning? Meaningful learning? Creative learning? … The Research View
- 13. @isaja Theoretical lens Design isthe act of giving a form to something Teaching is the ’design act’ of creating conditions for learning; more specific, it is the act of modelling sociotechnical-pedagogical processes/’workflows’ to enable student learning Designs for Learning Bonderup-Dohn & Hansen, 2014 Jahnke, Norqvist, & Olsson, 2014
- 14. @isaja Digital Didactical Design 3 layers affect each other ICTICT ICT ICT Student Teacher Content Teaching objectives Pro.- Assessment/Feedback Learning activities Academic staff development Curriculum (+exams) development Institutional strategies 1 Didactical Interactions 2 Digital Didactical Design 3 Didactical Conditions
- 15. @isaja 1 Teaching goals Intended LearningOutcomes Learning activities Process-based Assessment Feedback/guided reflections (by peers, teachers, self-reflections) social relations/roles Web-enabled technologies Digital Didactical Design - 5 components
- 16. @isaja 1 DDD componentDescription of Coding scheme Character of Teaching goals and intended/expected learning outcomes (Intended Learning Outcomes): clear and visible? TA/ILO 1= Not clear, not visible, no communication about teaching aims or learning intentions; focus on content 2= 3= Oral communication 4= 5= Teaching aims are clear and visible for students; intended learning outcomes in forms of development of skills; a source is available where the students can go and read aims and objectives; at best, co-aims of students are included, students know the criteria for learning progress (available right form the start). Character of Learning activities: towards producing in engaged, authentic, deep, open settings? LA 1= Students hear what teachers read from the textbook (surface learning only; e.g. remembering/ repetition of facts); theoretical problems without connecting it to a real world problem 2= 3= In-between (…) – signs are: students are not so engaged, too much time for doing other things (e.g. playing cards instead) 4= 5= Learning activities have a range from surface to deep learning: students produce something, engaged classrooms, collaboration with peers; the activities are connected to the students world and include a real-world problem (e.g. everyday experience); a real audience, students critically reflect on existing content (e.g. evaluating/creating/making), relate knowledge to new knowledge; “organize and structure content into coherent whole” (Marten & Säljö, 1979), students are engaged in producing, using the Internet or other sources beyond the physical school walls (signs of crossactions) Character of assessment: process-based? ASM 1 = Feedback only at the end (summative feedback); character of the feedback is rather summative, not formative 2= 3= Feedback during the class (not only technical help) by coincidence; teacher only gives feedback when they ask for support; passive support 4= 5= Criteria for a learning progress are visible for students from the beginning of the learning process; Feedback/feed-forward at the end but mainly process-based assessment for learner’s development; a plan exists for how the teacher creates pro-assessment (formative evaluation); a range of forms such as self-assessment; peer-reflective learning and feedback by the teacher, e.g. students document learning (electronically; a map or text, etc.), the teacher asks them to go back and reflect. Character of Social relations: multiple roles (not only consumers?)? RO 1= Teacher is in the traditional role of the expert only; students are only seen as consumers (of solving closed questions and tasks where only one correct answer is possible) 2= 3= Teacher is in 1-2 roles but spends majority of time as expert; teacher does not support student engagement to be active 4= 5= TEACHER plays different roles, e.g., expert, process mentor, learning-companion, coach, she fosters students to be in different roles such as consumers, producers, collaborators, critical reflectors, etc.; teacher engages students; teacher activates the students to change their roles; STUDENTS are in several roles, e.g. teachers for their peers, finding own learning aims, creating own learning tasks, etc., teacher supports student reflection of roles and development of new roles. Character of Web-enabled technology/ tablets for cross- actions? TAB 1= Low extent, drill and practice; students work primarily alone when using technology, not related to the real world (e.g., technology is substitute for pen and paper) 2= 3= Medium extent (e.g., new technology is substitute for existing media; for example, tablet substitutes a laptop) 4= 5= High extent, multimodal, beyond writing texts, camera app, digital paintings, apps for collaborative creation; students construct, share, create, publish their knowledge (to a real audience); students use online resources, actively select topics beyond the limitations of even the best school library, signs of crossaction (using online world to solve a learning activity).
- 17. @isaja Social Relations, Multiple Roles: From1 to many & Student is agent Learning activities: (From shallow to deep learning) Teaching goals: From non-clear to clear and visible Outer circle=5 Inner circle=1 From teacher-led classrooms (inner circle) to meaningful learner-centered practice (outer circle) Mobile Technology Integration: From substitution to multimodal Process-based Assessment: From summative to formative
- 18.
- 19. @isaja ID 12 creatinga digital pres (geography) Learning activities Process-based Assessment iPad integration Social Relations, Roles Teaching goals
- 20. @isaja ID 19 creatinga timeline Learning activities Process-based Assessment iPad integration Social Relations, Roles Teaching goals
- 21. @isaja Cluster A (23in total) new teaching practice toward meaningful learning by crossaction; new instructional designs Cluster B (21 cases) on the way but sticky Cluster C (20 in total) conflicting, trapped in traditional designs 3 clusters...
- 22. @isaja 2 … and 2Patterns across clusters Pattern A: 40 cl. across all layers/clusters (focus on TAB and LA Pattern B: 3 cl. (focus on ASM and TAB)
- 23. @isaja The university ofthe future… is made of crossactionspaces, in which teaching is organized in project teacher teams across existing disciplines (Eva Mårell’s GoogleGlas project: involving 3 different study programs) teacher teams from different departments work together and design a Learning expedition – and the students develop learning expeditions - learning by topic / not by subject
- 24. @isaja Dr. Isa Jahnke,Associate Professor and Director of Research for the Information Experience Lab at the iSchool Email jahnkei@missouri.edu Website http://www.isa-jahnke.com My book Routledge, 2016
Editor's Notes
- #2 As web-enabled mobile technologies become increasingly integrated into formal learning environments, they are merging to create a new kind of classroom: CrossActionSpaces (informal-in-formal spaces) in which communicative learning takes place across traditional boundaries. The term offers a view from social sciences, emphasizes a change of human action: from pure inter-action into cross-action. Under these new conditions the question are: how to conceptualize and design for learning, how can teaching helps learning? In this keynote, Isa Jahnke presents the framework of Digital Didactical Designs (DDD) which can be used to study and to reflect on educational practices toward deeper learning expeditions. Thank you very much for the nice introduction. Hello, good morning. Welcome to my presentation. My name is Isa and I am going to present a research framework what I call DDD.
- #3 I moved to the Univ of Missouri in Aug 2015. The iSchool at Mizzou is famous for EdTech, awards in 2012
- #4 And the iSchool is also famous for its research around “Meaningful Learning with Technologies”. You probably have heard one of the authors’names. These are my colleagues.
- #5 I have a interdisciplinary and intercultural background. I studied Social Sciences, was PhD student in Computer Science, my first professor job was in Didaktik and Learning Technologies at TU Dortmund univ. , then I was 5 years professor in Sweden at Umea University, and now I am professor in the United States. Here are some of my projects.
- #7 So, when you use all the devices here, which is great, then you see my point that ICT is not just a tool. It changes the way we interact with each other. When interaction changes, our ways of communication are changing , too . This affects the way we learn.
- #8 Interaction from my view of Sociology is a form of communication. The smallest entity in social systems (Interaction) is communication. However, that kind of inter-action is changing in the digital age. As you can see here , at the EDEN conference, adding Twitter to the conversations opens up for new audiences. A) A discussion among you without me when you tweet right now B) Readers that are your followers and contribute somehow but they are not in the room C) Some of the questions might come up after my presentation at the coffee break. And so forth. This is what I call a form of a cross-action! Listening and engaging in what we hear even with others that are nor reachable otherwise. It is more than inter-action closed in a room. It is a crossing action. And creates new spaces, crossactionspaces.
- #9 This slide makes the crossaction and the concept of crossactionspaces clearer, hopefully.
- #10 Now, here is the same slide from the view of Online Distance Classroom …
- #11 Now we have a bew questions to answer: What is learning in crossactionspaces?
- #12 I cannot go into detail, here. In the LEX project, we applied design principles from a) game based learning and b) Meaningful Learning with Technologies By Howland et al. We connect student classroom knowledge and their themes with the Sociomaterial world.
- #13 Now, this is a research conference and so the research view is kind of important here. What kinds of designs for learning are applied? And, How can we study this?
- #14 Our theoretical lens is the Design view in combination with the Sociotechnical
- #15 The challenge is that the designs for learning are influenced by the conditions and situated context .
- #18 The more the DDD is on the outer layer the more comprehensive is the enablement for deeper learning in crossactionspces. Definitions Surface learning: remembering, recalling, understanding the problem Deeper learning: using the knowledge to solve a problem using exsting sources such as the Internet (crossactionspaces), evaluating, creating new knowledge, competencies,…
- #22 MD = Media-tablet-Didactics (7-8) DD = Digital Didactics (5-6) BT = Benefit of Tablet integration (special case, 4) PD = Potential for a digital didactical design (3-4) RE = RE-alignment required (1-2)
- #23 P a) 7 classrooms in layer 5 (while all other elements got the same attention) 14 classrooms in layer 4 (LA and TAB are stronger emphasized than the other elements) 9 classrooms in layer 3 additional 4 in layer 3, same patterns but on a lower level 3 classrooms in layer 2 3 classrooms in layer 1 (all show same pattern but on a lower level)
- #24 I could talk for hours about all my research and the results. But I have to come to an end after 30 mins. To wrap it up: The university of the future is made of crossactionspaces and learning expeditions.