Provision of personalized feedback at scale using learning analyticsAbelardo Pardo
The increasing presence of technology mediation offers an unprecedented opportunity to use detailed data sets about the interactions that occur while a learning experience is being enacted. Areas such as Learning Analytics or Educational Data Mining have explored numerous algorithms and techniques to process these data sets. Additionally, technology now offers the opportunity to increase the immediacy of interventions. However, not much emphasis has been placed on how to extract truly actionable knowledge and how to bring it effectively as part of a learning experience. In this talk, we will use the concept of feedback as the focus to establish a specific connection between the knowledge derived from data-analysis procedures and the actions that can be immediately deployed in a learning environment. We will discuss how there is a trade-off between low-level automatic feedback and high-level complex feedback and how technology can provide efficient solutions for the case of large or highly diverse cohorts.
Slides from the workshop presented by Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson at the Australian Technology Network conference in Sydney in November 2010.
From the ALTC-funded project "Web 2.0 Authoring Tools in Higher Education: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity"
I4Education webinar: IFRC learning network case study. Presented June 21, 2012 by Reda Sadki, Senior officer for Learning systems International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Provision of personalized feedback at scale using learning analyticsAbelardo Pardo
The increasing presence of technology mediation offers an unprecedented opportunity to use detailed data sets about the interactions that occur while a learning experience is being enacted. Areas such as Learning Analytics or Educational Data Mining have explored numerous algorithms and techniques to process these data sets. Additionally, technology now offers the opportunity to increase the immediacy of interventions. However, not much emphasis has been placed on how to extract truly actionable knowledge and how to bring it effectively as part of a learning experience. In this talk, we will use the concept of feedback as the focus to establish a specific connection between the knowledge derived from data-analysis procedures and the actions that can be immediately deployed in a learning environment. We will discuss how there is a trade-off between low-level automatic feedback and high-level complex feedback and how technology can provide efficient solutions for the case of large or highly diverse cohorts.
Slides from the workshop presented by Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson at the Australian Technology Network conference in Sydney in November 2010.
From the ALTC-funded project "Web 2.0 Authoring Tools in Higher Education: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity"
I4Education webinar: IFRC learning network case study. Presented June 21, 2012 by Reda Sadki, Senior officer for Learning systems International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Presentation for a doctoral seminar at the Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow, UK, March 25, 2010. The argument put forth is that open, distributed infrastructures are the way go for networked learning, particularly in the non-formal settings that are needed for professional development to thrive.
Presentation for a doctoral seminar at the University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK, March 24, 2010. The argument put forth is that open, distributed infrastructures are the way go for networked learning, particularly in non-formal settings.
At present, the existing literature shows that the factors which influence the effectiveness of virtual teams for new product development are still ambiguous. To address this problem, a research design was developed, which includes detailed literature review, preliminary model and field survey. From literature review, the factors which influence the effectiveness of virtual teams are identified and these factors are modified using a field survey. The relationship between knowledge workers (people), process and technology in virtual teams is explored in this study. The results of the study suggest that technology and process are tightly correlated and need to be considered early in virtual teams. The use of software as a service, web solution, report generator and tracking system should be incorporated for effectiveness virtual teams.
A Stage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems (CHI 2010 Talk)Ian Li
People strive to obtain self-knowledge. A class of systems called personal informatics is appearing that help people collect and reflect on personal information. However, there is no comprehensive list of problems that users experience using these systems, and no guidance for making these systems more effective. To address this, we conducted surveys and interviews with people who collect and reflect on personal information. We derived a stage-based model of personal informatics systems composed of five stages (preparation, collection, integration, reflection, and action) and identified barriers in each of the stages. These stages have four essential properties: barriers cascade to later stages; they are iterative; they are user-driven and/or system-driven; and they are uni-faceted or multi-faceted. From these properties, we recommend that personal informatics systems should 1) be designed in a holistic manner across the stages; 2) allow iteration between stages; 3) apply an appropriate balance of automated technology and user control within each stage to facilitate the user experience; and 4) explore support for associating multiple facets of people’s lives to enrich the value of systems.
Presentation for a doctoral seminar at the Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow, UK, March 25, 2010. The argument put forth is that open, distributed infrastructures are the way go for networked learning, particularly in the non-formal settings that are needed for professional development to thrive.
Presentation for a doctoral seminar at the University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK, March 24, 2010. The argument put forth is that open, distributed infrastructures are the way go for networked learning, particularly in non-formal settings.
At present, the existing literature shows that the factors which influence the effectiveness of virtual teams for new product development are still ambiguous. To address this problem, a research design was developed, which includes detailed literature review, preliminary model and field survey. From literature review, the factors which influence the effectiveness of virtual teams are identified and these factors are modified using a field survey. The relationship between knowledge workers (people), process and technology in virtual teams is explored in this study. The results of the study suggest that technology and process are tightly correlated and need to be considered early in virtual teams. The use of software as a service, web solution, report generator and tracking system should be incorporated for effectiveness virtual teams.
A Stage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems (CHI 2010 Talk)Ian Li
People strive to obtain self-knowledge. A class of systems called personal informatics is appearing that help people collect and reflect on personal information. However, there is no comprehensive list of problems that users experience using these systems, and no guidance for making these systems more effective. To address this, we conducted surveys and interviews with people who collect and reflect on personal information. We derived a stage-based model of personal informatics systems composed of five stages (preparation, collection, integration, reflection, and action) and identified barriers in each of the stages. These stages have four essential properties: barriers cascade to later stages; they are iterative; they are user-driven and/or system-driven; and they are uni-faceted or multi-faceted. From these properties, we recommend that personal informatics systems should 1) be designed in a holistic manner across the stages; 2) allow iteration between stages; 3) apply an appropriate balance of automated technology and user control within each stage to facilitate the user experience; and 4) explore support for associating multiple facets of people’s lives to enrich the value of systems.
Innovating computer science education at the high school level through techno...George Veletsianos
In this presentation we describe various features and scaffolds embedded in a Computer Science high school course that is supported by an online learning environment. To develop this course we followed a design-based research approach with problem-based learning as our underlying pedagogy. In collaboration with computer scientists, Computer Science teachers, and instructional designers, we sought to re-envision Computer Science instruction while creating an innovation that is flexible enough to adapt to local contexts without losing its essence.
Innovating Computer Science Education at the High School Level through Techno...Gregory Russell
We describe various features and scaffolds embedded in a computer science high school course that is supported by an online learning environment. To develop this course we followed a design-based research approach with problem-based learning as our underlying pedagogy. In collaboration with computer scientists, computer science teachers, and instructional designers, we sought to re-envision Computer Science instruction while creating an innovation that is flexible enough to adapt to local contexts without losing its essence.
A Task-Centered Framework för Computationally Grounded Science CollaborationsDr. Matheus Hauder
Collaboration is ubiquitous in today’s science, yet there is limited support for coordinating scientific work. The general-purpose tools that are typically used (e.g., email, shared document editing, social coding sites), have still not replaced inperson meetings, phone calls, and extensive emails needed to coordinate and track collaborative activities. Scientists with diverse knowledge and skills around the globe could collaborate by opening scientific processes that expose all tasks and activities publicly to achieve a shared scientific question. This paper describes the Organic Data Science framework to support scientific collaborations that revolve around complex science questions that require significant coordination, entice contributors to remain engaged for extended periods of time, and enable continuous growth to accommodate new contributors as the work evolves over time. We discuss how the design of this framework incorporates principles followed by successful on-line communities. We present initial results to date of several communities that are collaborating using this framework.
Bridging the missing middle for al_tversionfinal_14_08_2014debbieholley1
Presentation to ALT-C 2014
Taking innovation from concept through to scalable delivery is complex, contested and under-theorised process. This report aims to capture the current major themes underpinning scaling, and apply these to the context of the Learning Layers project. An external review of our early ‘Design Research framework for scaling’ has highlighted that the approach is too linear and may rely too heavily on the diffusion of innovation paradigm originally proposed by Everett Rogers in the 1960s, which is less appropriate for scaling innovations in our project. Rather, we start out from design-based research principles where co-design with the users is producing both theories and practical educational interventions as outcomes of the process. This is a robust and appropriate approach suitable for addressing complex problems in educational practice for which no clear guidelines or solutions are available. We suggest that it is therefore also appropriate for multi-faceted and complex research projects such as Learning Layers.
Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2012) xxx–xxxContents lists.docxpatricke8
Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c o m p h u m b e h
Critical thinking in E-learning environments
Raafat George Saadé a,⇑, Danielle Morin a,1, Jennifer D.E. Thomas b,2
a Concordia University, John Molson School of Business, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
b Pace University, Ivan Seidenberg School of CSIS, New York, NY, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
E-learning
Critical thinking
Assessment
Information technology
0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 848 2424; fax
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.G. Sa
1 Tel.: +1 514 848 2424; fax: +1 514 848 2824.
2 Tel.: +1 212 346 1569; fax: +1 212 346 1863.
Please cite this article in press as: Saadé, R. G., e
10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025
a b s t r a c t
One of the primary aims of higher education in today’s information technology enabled classroom is to
make students more active in the learning process. The intended outcome of this increased IT-facilitated
student engagement is to foster important skills such as critical thinking used in both academia and
workplace environments. Critical thinking (CT) skills entails the ability(ies) of mental processes of discern-
ment, analysis and evaluation to achieve a logical understanding. Critical thinking in the classroom as well
as in the workplace is a central theme; however, with the dramatic increase of IT usage the mechanisms by
which critical thinking is fostered and used has changed. This article presents the work and results of
critical thinking in a virtual learning environment. We therefore present a web-based course and we
assess in which parts of the course, and to what extent, critical thinking was perceived to occur. The course
contained two categories of learning modules namely resources and interactive components. Critical
thinking was measured subjectively using the ART scale. Results indicate the significance of ‘‘interactivity’’
in what students perceived to be critical-thinking-oriented versus online material as a resource. Results
and opportunities that virtual environments present to foster critical thinking are discussed.
� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
One of the primary aims of higher education in today’s informa-
tion technology (IT) enabled classroom, is to make students more
active in the learning process (Ibrahim & Samsa, 2009). The in-
tended outcome of this increased IT-facilitated student engage-
ment is to foster important skills such as critical thinking. Given
the importance of information technology for critical thinking in
learning, it is vital that we understand better the associated key
factors related to: background of students, beliefs, perceptions
and attitudes and associated anteceden.
SMART Infrastructure Facility was pleased to host Dr Ruth Deakin Crick, a Reader in Systems Learning and Leadership, at University of Bristol, UK as she presented ‘Learning Journeys: making learning visible in developing infrastructure futures’ as part of the SMART Seminar Series on October 16th, 2014.
Invited talk: Using Social Media and Mobile Devices to Mediate Informal, Professional, Work-Based Learning
John Cook
Bristol Centre for Research
in Lifelong Learning and Education (BRILLE)
University of the West of England (UWE)
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/research/brille/
http://people.uwe.ac.uk/Pages/person.aspx?accountname=campus\jn-cook
Invited talk: Centre for Learning, Knowing and Interactive Technologies, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol
26th February, 12.30 to 13.45
Teaching and Learning Experience Design – der Ruf nach besserer Lehre: aber wie?Isa Jahnke
Der Ruf danach, dass es bessere Lehre geben muss oder das Lehre verbessert werden sollte, ist nicht neu. Es gibt auch schon seit längerer Zeit Rufe danach, dass Lehre der Forschung in Universitäten gleichgestellt werden soll. (Und in den letzten Jahren ist in Deutschland auch einiges an positiven Entwicklungen geschehen, z.B. durch die Aktivitäten des Stifterverbands). Wie kann die Verbesserung der Lehre weitergehen? Fehlt etwas in dieser Entwicklung? Ja, sagt dieser Beitrag, der zum Nachdenken und Diskutieren anregen soll. In diesem Beitrag wird ein forschungsbasierter Ansatz zur Diskussion gestellt. Es wird argumentiert, dass Lehre nur dann besser wird, wenn es mit den Prinzipen der Wissenschaft und Forschung angegangen wird (d.h. gestalten, Daten erheben, auswerten, verbessern). Es benötigt neue Verhaltensregeln oder -prinzipien bei der Gestaltung von Lehrveranstaltungen. Das bedeutet zum Beispiel das Prinzipien der Evidenzbasierung und wissenschaftliche Herangehensweisen im Lehr-Lerndesign als zentrales Fundament etabliert werden sollte. Evidenzbasierung hier meint, folgt man der Logik der Forschung, dass Lehrveranstaltungen als Intervention verstanden werden. Mit dieser Intervention werden Studierende befähigt, bestimmte vorab festgelegte Kompetenzen zu entwickeln. Und die Frage, die sich bei jeder Lehr-Lernveranstaltung dann stellt, ist, ob diese Objectives bzw. Learning Outcomes auch erreicht wurden. Klar ist, dass die subjektive Lehrevaluation der Studierenden oder auch die Notengebnung nicht ausreichen, um diese Frage zu beantworten. Hierfür gibt es eine Reihe von Methoden, die genutzt werden können, z.B. aus dem Bereich des User- / Learning Experience Design. Diese Methoden umfassen unter anderem Usability-Tests, Learner Experience Studies, Pre-/Post-Tests, und Follow-up Interviews. Diese können zur Gestaltung und Erfassung von effektiven, effizienten und ansprechenden digitalen Lerndesigns verwendet (Reigeluth 1983, Honebein & Reigeluth, 2022).
Der Beitrag will die Entwicklung zur Verbesserung von Lehre weiter pushen. Neue Ideen in die Bewegung bringen. Als Gründungsvizepräsidentin der UTN hab ich die Chance, hier ein neues Fundament für eine gesamte Uni zu legen. Wird das Gelingen? Ist dieser Ansatz, den ich hier vorstelle, eine erfolgsversprechende Option dafür? Hier können sich die TeilnehmerInnen an dieser Entwicklung beteiligen.
“An experience is any situation you encounter that takes a certain amount of time and that leaves some kind of impression.”
“A learning experience is a holistic experience that is intentionally designed and carefully crafted to help the learner achieve a meaningful learning outcome that is (mostly) predefined.”
Aktivitäten / Interaktionen / Umgebungen, … durch die Lernende Wissen, Einstellungen und Kompetenzen erwerben
Jede Interaktion, jeder Kurs, jedes Studienprogramm, jede andere Lernerfahrung
Ansatz unterstreicht Ziel der Bildungsinteraktion: das Lernen - nicht ihren Ort (Schule, Klassenzimmer) oder ihr Format (Kurs, Programm).
Dank digitaler und intelligenter Technologie entstehen neue Lehr- und Lernräume: sogenannte CrossActionSpaces. In den dynamischen und flexiblen Informations- und Kommunikationsumgebungen diskutieren die Lernenden online und suchen im Internet nach Lösungen. Dabei werden falsche Informationen und fehlendes kritisches Denken zur Herausforderung.
In unserem CrossActionSpace laden wir dazu ein, gemeinsam mit Prof. Isa Jahnke Lösungen für erfolgreiches digital gestütztes Lehren und Lernen zu finden!
Kann man Zukunft antizipieren und wie geht man damit um? Ja, zu einen gewissen Grad. Auf der Grundlage vergangener Trends, aktueller Umstände und Expertenanalysen können fundierte Vermutungen oder Vorhersagen darüber gemacht werden, was passieren könnte. Im Bereich Lehr-Lern-Gestaltung gibt es dazu verschiedenen Methoden (z.B. Datenanalyse, Expertenmeinungen, Scenario Planung, Beobachtung aktueller Ereignisse). Unter Verwendung des neuen Forschungsfeldes „Learning Experience Design (LXD)“ wird die Gestaltung von digitalem Lehren und Lernen – enjoyable experiences (anticipated future) – anhand empirischer Studien vorgestellt, z.B. in den Kontexten von Games for learning mit AR, Mobile-Microlearning, und Online-Learning. Methoden umfassen unter anderem Usability-Tests, User Experience Studies, Pre-/Post-Tests, und Follow-up Interviews. Diese werden zur Gestaltung und Erfassung von effektiven, effizienten und ansprechenden digitalen Lerndesigns verwendet. Das Design von digital learning experiences umfasst drei Dimensionen: die Interaktion von Lernenden mit den Technologien (technische Dimension), die Interaktion mit anderen Lernenden und Lehrenden vermittelt durch die Lernplattformen (soziale Dimension), und die Interaktion der Lernenden mit didaktischen Elementen eingebettet in technischen Tools (pädagogische Dimension).
Digitalität als didaktisches Design
Wie kann man die swissuniversities Grundsätze und Leitvorstellungen in die Praxis einsetzen und weiterführen?
Was bedeuten die Leitvorstellungen für die Bildungswelt aus der Perspektive des Digitalen Didaktischen Design Ansatz?
CoMo Game Dev - usability and user experience methods Isa Jahnke
This month we'll be hearing from Dr. Isa Jahnke, Director of the User Experience and Learning Design Lab at the University of Missouri. She will be discussing usability, user experience, and how to get the most out of focus groups and testing nights for the CoMO game development community.
As emergent technologies become increasingly integrated into formal learning environments, a new kind of classroom emerge: CrossActionSpaces. These spaces can be characterized as informal-in-formal spaces in which learning takes place across traditional boundaries. In this keynote, Isa Jahnke will present meaningful learning with technologies versus learning from technologies and the framework of Digital Didaktik Designs (DDD). DDD can be applied to design, develop and evaluate online, blended or mobile learning practices. Examples of real classrooms will be illustrated. Just a side note: Didactics in the North American discourse and Didaktik as evolved in Europe have completely different meanings.
Active-Meaningful Learning with Technologies Isa Jahnke
Bei der Anwendung von Internet-fähigen Technologien in der Weiterbildung, beim Online-Lernen und mit zunehmender Integration von mobilen Endgeräten im Alltag entstehen neue Lehr- und Lernräume: CrossActionSpaces. Dies sind dynamische, flexible Informations- und Kommunikationsräume, in denen Lernende die richtigen Antworten online suchen oder diskutieren können. Herausforderungen sind, um einige zu nennen, die Vielzahl falscher Informationen und fehlendes kritisches oder systemisches Denken. Hier kann das Digitale Didaktische Design (DDD) als Lehr-/Lernstrategie helfen. DDD fördert die Gestaltung von Lernen mit Technologien anstelle des Lernens durch Technologien. DDD es ist ein aktivitäts-basiertes Didaktik-Modell, das von der der Grundannahme ausgeht, dass Lernende nicht aufgrund der Aktivitäten der Lehrenden lernen, sondern durch eigene Aktivitäten. Zentrales Element des DDD ist, dass Lernende Artefakte in einem iterativen Prozess erstellen, kritisch reflektieren und verbessern. In der Keynote wird das DDD und Beispiele für meaningful learning with technologies in Weiterbildung und Fernstudium vorgestellt.
Information Experience Lab, IE Lab at SISLTIsa Jahnke
Founded in 2003
The Information Experience Laboratory, IE Lab – is a usability and user experience lab …
… with the mission to improve learning technologies, information and communication systems.
We here present the IE Lab and methods .
Designing Teaching to Enhance Learning in CrossActionSpaces (Informal-In-Form...Isa Jahnke
As web-enabled mobile technologies become increasingly integrated into formal learning environments, a new kind of classroom emerge: CrossActionSpaces. These spaces can be characterized as informal-in-formal spaces in which learning takes place across traditional boundaries. The term provides a view on learning from the perspective of social sciences while emphasizing a change of human action: from inter-action into cross-action. Under these new conditions the questions are: how to design for learning, how can teaching enhance learning? In this keynote, Isa Jahnke presents the framework of Digital Didactical Designs (DDD) which can be applied to study, evaluate and reflect on educational practices toward deep and meaningful learning expeditions.
Designing Teaching to Enhance Learning in CrossActionSpaces (Informal-In-Form...
Pres group2012 intro-v2
1. Sean P. Goggins
Drexel University
Isa Jahnke
Umeå University
Volker Wulf
Siegen University,
Germany
Workshop on CSCL@Work
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning a the Workplace:
Beyond CSCL & CSCW
GROUP 2012, Florida | 28 Oct 2012
2. Computer-supported collaborative learning at work –
Looking back (2 years ago)
Collaborative Learning at Work is about more than
acquiring new information to perform a task. It is
also about co-constructing new knowledge and
developing competences in situated actions to solve
a problem within a firm, an organization or a
government and to improve its services in socially
as well as economically measurable ways.
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 2
3. Our motivation
What we observed:
•Firms neglect or do not support ‘learning at work’,
•Firms avoid the term “learning” and
•Firms Learning is seen as a weakness.
What we want(ed) to know:
1.How is “Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at Work” designed
and studied?
2.What are the theoretical and methodological implications, and where do they
take this emerging research space?
3.Do we need to rethink workplace training & WORK-INTEGRATED learning;
how it is conducted nowadays? Are more collaborative learning strategies useful
and could they contribute to higher performance?
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 3
4. Finding first answers in a 1st workshop at Group2010
Guiding questions to our workshop participants in 2010
1. How is our knowledge of the role of collaboration in learning being
applied in workplace settings today? To what extent is it supported by
computers and social media platforms?
1. What does CSCL@Work in your research mean? Do you have a
definition (and is this different to others)?
1. What challenges do we face? How can we successfully introduce and
study computer-supported collaborative learning in the workplace? (e.g.,
which methods are appropriate?)
1. What are essential design & evaluation criteria (regarding technical,
social and educational dimensions)?
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 4
5. The aim of the first workshop in 2010 was…
…to share examples of CSCL@Work
with the objective of developing a conceptual framework for
CSCL@Work that encompasses the examples.
•…to identify and discuss examples of CSCL at work
•…to identify theoretical and methodological commonalities and
contrasts across the represented disciplines relative to CSCL at
work
•…to further define the constituency of researchers who share an
interest in exploring collaborative learning in the workplace
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 5
6. Meta-Analysis of 9 cases from the 1st workshop
Gerhard Fischer (University of Colorado at Boulder, Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland & Leif
USA), keynote Martin Hokstad (Norwegian University
„When the answer to a problem is not known?“ of Science and Technology),
Organizational Learning with Serious
David Gurzick (Hood College, USA), Games: Monitoring and Analyzing
Transforming CSCL in the Workplace by Communities
Using Online Personal Networks
Elizabeth M. King (University of
Sean P. Goggins (Drexel university, USA), Wisconsin-Madison, School of
Designing CSCL at Work for Rural IT Workers: Education),
Digital Media and Gaming Spaces as
Jean-Laurent Cassier, Kristine Lund, Guy Models of CSCL and CSCW in Practice
Prudhomme (CNRS, University of Grenoble, France),
Isa Jahnke & Claudius Terkowsky,
Provoking pivotal moments for decision making
Christian Pleul (TU Dortmund
during collaborative design?
University, Germany),
Platform for eLearning and Telemetric
Mark Hartswood (Edinburgh University), Lilian Blot
Experimentation (PeTEX) –
(Durham University, UK), Rob Procter (Manchester
A Framework for Community-based
University), Louise Wilkinson (South-West London
Learning in the Workplace
Breast, UK), Paul Taylor (University College, UK),
Alison Gilchrist (South East Scotland Breast),
Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning for
Mammography
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 6
7. Collaborative learning as connection between individual
and organizational learning
In d iv id u a l) O r g a n iz a 1 o n a l)
L e a r n in g ) L e a r n i n g ))
C o lla b o r a 1 v e )
L e a r n in g )
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 7
8. Cases illustrate a gap:
‘ what employees do’ & ‘what firms want to do’ differs!
Cases reveal the potential of work-integrated collaborative learning
Employees use Social Media like Facebook, Twitter, LInkedIn other platforms
to solve a problem they face in a specific situation at work
vs.
Firms do not make collaborative learning visible
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 8
9. Goggins & Jahnke, 2012
Results IJSKD
Thesis 1. Collaborative learning in a CSCL@Work setting is enabled by
and in unexpected and unusual online learning places.
Thesis 2. Learning in a CSCL@Work setting is enabled by fostering
learning activities that incorporate feedback from diverse sources and
different feedback partners who are not available within the traditional
organizational boundaries. Such new sources are available through
personal connections, developed by using social media, which are
disruptive to our classic conceptualization of what an organization is.
Thesis 3. Learning in a CSCL@Work setting is enabled by supporting
technology-embraced collaborative learning across established
boundaries.
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 9
10. Implications
Support for CSCL@Work is often implicitly done instead of
designing knowledge co-construction as an explicit way of learning.
With this framework, we provide a start for making learning visible.
•Making learning in unexpected, unusual online learning places visible –
enabling unstructured connections to the employee’s work places by Social
Media.
•Enabling learning by leveraging new connections in the Internet – enabling
the change of the feedback partners and established learning loops.
•The key principle of CSCL@Work is to design collaborative learning across
established boundaries (social- and technology-constructed boundaries).
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 10
11. Possible design criteria
T e c h n ic a l( S o c ia l( P e d a g o g ic a l(
S t r u c t u r a l(
(C o u p l i n g (
Q u a lit y (
C o n c e p t (o f (
?(
Su cce ss(
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 11
12. …aim of the 2nd workshop, ACM Group 2012
Development of a shared understanding of the different
CSCL@Work perspectives, leading to …
… an integrated set of research questions that can be
pursued across the boundaries of CSCL and CSCW
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 12
14. Road Map Today – overview (1/3)
9.00 Start
• Introduction (15 mins)
• Get-to-know each other (15 mins) & Postcard Symbol (30 mins)
10:00 Part 1
Gerhard Fischer, USA (15 mins)
Gerry Stahl, USA (15 mins)
Volker Wulf, GER (15 mins)
Break -- 10:40-11:00 Coffee break
11:00 Part 2
Discussion in small groups, 3-4 people (4-5 tables):
Break 12.00-13:00 Lunch
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 14
15. Road Map Today – overview (2/3)
13:00 Part 3
Michael Prilla & Thomas Herrmann, GER (15 mins)
Anders Morch, Norway (15 mins)
Leif Hokstad, Norway (15 mins)
Discussions in small groups, 3-4 people (4-5 tables)
Break -- 14:15-14:30 Coffee break (fika)
14:30 Part 4 – Poster session (15 mins)
David Gurzik, USA (5 mins)
Hilda Tellioglu, Austria (5 mins)
Discussion in small groups, 3-4 people (4-5 tables)
Break -- 15:45-16:00 Coffee break (fika)
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 15
16. Road Map Today – overview (3/3)
16:00 Part 5
Presentation of the results created in small groups (4-5 groups, 45 mins)
At the end…. What next?
End 17:15
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 16
17. Starting NOW … Get to know each other 30 mins
•Your name, your affiliation
•Pick a postcard as a symbol for…
What challenge/problem does
CSCL@Work solve?
(Why do you study CSCL@Work?)
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 17
18. 10:45 Part 2 - Challenges for CSCL@Work
A Conceptual Framework for
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at Work
by Gerhard Fischer, Boulder/CO, USA
Theories of Collaborative Cognition: Foundations
for CSCL and CSCW Together
by Gerry Stahl, USA
CSCL@Networking - Regional Learning in Software Industries
by Volker Wulf, Germany
15
mins
each
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 18
20. Discussions (No 1)
What criteria/topics/issues towards CSCL@Work
can you identify from the presentations?
What do we know today,
what we didn’t know 2 years ago?
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 20
22. 13:15 Part 3 - CSCL@Work in practice
(facilitation and reflection)
Collaborative Reflections for Learning at the Workplace – the Health Care Case
by Michael Prilla & Thomas Herrmann, IMTM, Univ of Bochum, Germany
Information Seeking and Collaborative Knowledge Creation: Exploring
Collaborative Learning in Customer Service Work and Software Product
Development
by Anders Mørch, InterMedia, University of Oslo, Norway
Reflective Online Learning at the Workplace, the case of TARGET
by Leif Hokstad, Norway
15
mins
each
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 22
23. Small groups (No 2)
“What more items regarding a framework about CSCL at work
could be identified and where (existing clusters) would you
connecting it?”
COLLECTING FURTHER ideas, ADD new ideas and
creating CLUSTERS
Small groups
Per group 3-4 people
4-5 tables
30 mins
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 23
25. 14:30 Part 4 – unexpected learning places
30 mins
Online Personal Networks of Knowledge Workers
by David Gurzik, Hood College, USA (5 mins)
Support for Learning in Change Situations (Change Management)
By Hilda Tellioglu, Austria (5 mins)
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 25
26. Small groups (No 3)
Assessing the ideas towards a CSCL@Work framework,
creating theses, open questions, etc. with regard to
studying and designing CSCL@Work
Preparing a story that you can tell
after the next coffee break
Small groups
Per group 3-4 people
4-5 tables
30 mins
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 26
28. 16:00 Part 5 – Presentations of Small Group Outcomes
Each group ca. 15 mins
4 groups
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 28
29. CSCL@Work: What did we learn?
When groups present, collect here the results…
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 29
30. What Difference Can CSCL@Work Make?
What is the added value of CSCL@Work?
What is the nature of learning at work, and is it different to learning in
schools, universities, research projects, vocational education,…?
What are next research steps, …?
What do we need to do next?
CSCL2013 Workshop? Who is with us? Who wants to be more active?
Special Issue of ijCSCL?
How to establish a network? (How to involve younger researchers?)
Funding & Empirical Projects
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 30
31. 17:00 Happy ending?
“It depends where you end the story…”
Sean P. Goggins Isa Jahnke
Drexel University, USA Umeå University, Sweden
www.csclatwork.org
Volker Wulf
Siegen University, Germany
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 31
32. Publications
Paper
Sean P. Goggins & Isa Jahnke (2012):
CSCL@Work: Making Learning Visible in Unexpected Online Places Across Established
Boundaries. In International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 4(3), pp. 17-
37. DOI: 10.4018/jskd.2012070102.
Goggins-Jahnke-2012-PDF
Coming up ---- the new book !
Sean Goggins, Isa Jahnke & Volker Wulf (Eds.):
CSCL@Work - Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace. Foreword by John
Seely Brown. NY: Springer Publisher.
www.csclatwork.org | 28 Oct 2012 32