The document discusses creative learning cultures and educational innovations in a Web 2.0 world. It outlines how technologies like Wikipedia, discussion boards, Facebook, and Twitter have enabled new forms of collaboration and knowledge sharing. However, it also notes potential problems with issues of reliability, privacy, and plagiarism. The document proposes that these issues can be addressed through socio-technical and educational design that considers the interdependencies between technology, teaching/learning cultures, and didactic approaches. It describes ongoing research projects focused on designing technology-enhanced learning environments and fostering creativity in higher education.

1. Creative Learning Cultures educational innovations in a Web2.0-world Isa Jahnke [email_address] May 2011 Umeå Universitet

2. Outline

3. Millions of users in Wikipedia (collaboration; ProSumers = consumers+producers) Thousands of online discussion boards (e.g., marathon training, health, movies…) Facebook (e.g., volcano ash cloud: people provided private accommodations organized carpools via Facebook) Twitter (e.g., information about protests during Iran election, 2009) Crowdsourcing * (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Innocentive = Internet services, new form of knowledge generating processes) Web 1.0 = download only Web 2.0 = communication *Jahnke & Prilla, 2008 (Eds. Back, Gronau, Tochtermann) 2011-05-04 [email_address]

4. … and problems Wikipedia: ‘opinion-maker/-leader’ for many people; true information? Data privacy: marketing companies make profiles about user’s behavior Stalking with GPS tracking Cheating in universities: students use Wikipedia and other easy-to-find Internet-sources without cite them correctly People using Web2.0 without knowing about the data problems, OR they know however they still use it (how to teach “reflection”?) * New “socio-technical relationships” ** with emergent properties ( socio-technically constructed ) **Jahnke 2009 (Handbook Whitworth, about socio-technical systems) *Member of excellent research network Global Young Faculty (GYF), Tech group, survey about Internet behavior „Being 3.0“ 2011-05-04 [email_address]

5. Social Media in higher education Jury member RCO: Courses Campus Online Teaching/ learning processes New Technologies 2011-05-04 [email_address]

6. How to solve these problems regarding learning with new technologies ? Thesis It depends on the DESIGN – socio-technical & educational design 2011-05-04 [email_address]

7. 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, PBL) Design-Based Research 2011-05-04 [email_address]

8. Research question How to design (develop & evaluate) Technology-enhanced 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

9. What does “successful” mean? (regarding computer-enhanced learning) 1) Degree of structural coupling (degree of interdependency) how close/loose are the three elements connected Technical Systems Social-organizational Structures Educational, didactical Concepts 2) Degree of quality how good the three elements play together The better the unit,… … the better they share knowledge … the better they learn … the more the users (teachers/students/university managers,…) are satisfied (with the “embeddedness”) 3) Successful for which people? different target groups and different roles (dynamical changes!) (students, professors, teachers, lifelong learners, newbies, experts) in different situations (e.g., courses), in different systems (universities, faculties, different cultures) Jahnke, Pleul, Terkowsky, Tekkaya 2010 Suchman 1987/ 2007 Orlikowski, 1996 Coakes, 2002 Herrmann/Loser/Jahnke 2007 2011-05-04 [email_address]

10. 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

11. 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) + New view on roles - position, -actor ’s activities/tasks, -implicit/explicit expectations, -role-making 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” 2011-05-04 [email_address]

12. 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

13. 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

14. DaVINCI “What is a creative effort given by your students?” Title Creativity in (Technology-Enhanced) learning cultures; BMBF 2008-2011, together with IMTM/Bochum U Methods Interviews with experts (20 outstanding & ”normal” teachers, 2009) Online survey about creativity-stages (2010) Creating ‘creative learning scenarios‘ (2010) Creating ‘trainings/modules for teachers’ (2010) Evaluation of intervention / redesign (2010-2011) 2011-05-04 [email_address]

15. 6-facets-model: fostering creativity in higher education Jahnke &Haertel, 2010 ournal “Das Hochschulwesen” 2011-05-04 [email_address] 50% 62% 42% 47% 55% 56% n =587

16. 2011-05-04 [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, 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; creation of, for example, interconnections in theses, research-mode learning projects, aid and outreach projects; planning a conference. 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 fascination / increasing motivation to learn Enabling situated learning, use experiences of students, developing interesting ways to pose questions or 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 steering the 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 oneself 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 task is given

17. DaVinci – more results…. 4-field-matrix gives answers to: what, how to design? 4 scenarios to support creativity Research-based learning with wikis (blended learning) Interactive lectures by a discussion board/forum Student-generated Webtours (distance learning) Co-located learning with i-clicker, mindmeister, twitter 2 training modules ( “Web 2.0, eLearning & Co”, “Through the barricades”) for teachers (workshops also conducted at Uni Trier, Münster, FH Köln, Berlin) 6 facets of creativity support 4 computer-enhanced learning scenarios 2 modules (train the teacher) 4-field-matrix 2011-05-04 [email_address]

18. 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

19. 2011-05-04 [email_address]

20. 1. Learning Modules (interactive tasks) 3. Reflective learning (learners write a report, get reviews) 2. Preparing and doing an EXP 2011-05-04 [email_address]

21. Experts evaluation (June 2009) 32 Items, 4 Cluster Experiment What is a successful EXP? (if the experiment „fails ” what will the learner learn then?) Technical design Booking system, schedule Educational Design Standardized framework Learning level of complexity more active tasks than passive reading (every approx. 10 minutes, an active task is needed; it affects motivation) Social Design Review process ( Who gives feedback to whom in the phases of writing a report?) Terkowsky, Jahnke et al. 2010 REV, Stockholm 2011-05-04 [email_address]

22. Final evaluation 2010 PeTEX Video “ Demo_Petex.avi ”

23. InPUD In formatics P ortal U niversity of D ortmund = InPUD, a socio-technical community (STC), 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 2011-05-04 [email_address] Designing designing, development continuing improvements

24. InPUD Portal Foren www.inpud.de 2011-05-04 [email_address]

25. Study management (examples) Courses (examples) Discussion boards (Forum) 2011-05-04 [email_address]

26. Number of contributions 10-25 c. 51-100 c. 26-50 c. 1-9 c. 101-200 c. 201 and more c. (max. 500 per student) Core of community members (ca. 270) contribute regularly 0 contributions 21.1 % (=312) 16.2 % (=240) 8.2% (=121) 43.9 % (=649) 4.7 % (=70) 4.0% (=59) 1.8% (=27) n=1 478 (from 2 000 students) 2011-05-04 [email_address]

27. 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

28. 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 to 5 = higly disagree * = significance; 95%- confidence interval Mean 2002: 3.0 Mean 2009: 2.0 Jahnke, 2010 Zürich 2011-05-04 [email_address]

29. 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 do I 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. 2011-05-04 [email_address]

30. InPUD… Lessons learned Knowledge sharing is more effective with an STC than with Web 1.0 conditions only An STC is an effective supplement to formal learning Explanations STC supports flexibility anywhere, anytime easier to engage users, integration of weakly coupled users Different access to information and knowledge STC supports a better learning chance for all An STC provides flexible communication spaces with a specific quality of relationships (foster social proximity through ICT) => Knowledge management needs a balance of “static” information (Web 1.0) AND communication spaces (Web 2.0) (what balance? => depends on target groups, their needs) 2011-05-04 [email_address]

31. E-learning over time 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 2011-05-04 [email_address]

32. People Process embedded into institutional cultures Fostering creativity in learning cultures supported by social media Research plan 2011-05-04 [email_address] Skills, competencies (e.g., i-literacies, creative thinking/actions) Students (the reflective student; „Being 3.0 “ ) a Teachers (professional development ICTML!) b Designing new courses & scenarios „ 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

33. Thanks for your attention! Publications? Please ask, I send it to you http://www.isa-jahnke.de

34. Backup

35. What media-/ i-literacies do students have? Study about „Being 3.0 “ and awareness (1 year) What media competencies do teachers (in schools/Univ) have? Study about teachers and their competencies using new media in HE; how they use what Social Media in HE; attitudes and habitus; what learning outcomes do they enable (2 years) How to design creative learning scenarios in disciplines successfully? What role plays new media? Based on DaVINCI results „Fostering creativity in HE cultures “ , developing/implementing creative teaching and learning arrangements (e.g., PeTEX); (2-3 years) What potentials do informal learning have? Research about the connection of formal and informal learning supported by Social Media Lifelong learning; CSCL at the workplace, cf. InPUD; (3 years) 2011-05-04 [email_address]

36. e) What are sufficient assessments when implememting competence-/creativity-oriented learning processes? when teaching does foster creativity, examiniations also must include creativity aspects instead of traditional examinations (3 years) f) To what extent are (student ‘ s) evaluations of teaching useful for improving teaching/learning? Study about existing evaluation practices, and good practices regarding competence-oriented evaluation (e.g., Berlin „BevaKomp), developing design criteria (2 years) g) Visions, innovations, prototyps are required BUT bring it into practice: To what extend and how to transfer innovative TEL scenarios in practice? 2011-05-04 [email_address]

37. Transformation of higher education Creative lifelong learning cultures Universities today Central learning locations Focus on formal learning in classes Focus on presence Focusing individual learning Teaching paradigm (teacher-centered courses) Focus on content Teacher are experts Professional knowledge Future tasks of universities (Education 2.0) Organizing different learning spaces (including material from Internet, access to social media) Managing formal, non-formal and informal learning spaces Specific integration of presence, blended, online learning, co-located learning (see BOLD, Michael Power ) Mix of individual, collaborative, cooperative, community learning, and mobile learning Learning paradigm with appropriate instructions (e.g., research-based learning, Alan Jenkins ) Supporting co-construction of knowledge, capability to perform/act (knowledge, skills, behavior = competences) Teachers are experts BUT also moderators, coaches (depends on situation) Professional knowledge sharing embedded into creative, inspiring learning cultures 2011-05-04 [email_address]

38. Teaching and Learning …between instruction (teacher) and construction (learner) “ Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge – and instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) April 2011 [email_address]

39. Situated learning needs… Lave & Wenger 1991 complex problems authenticity multiple perspectives articulation and reflection social exchange