isajahnke ictml umea 2011-05-v1

Creative Learning Cultures

educational innovationsin a Web2.0-world

Isa Jahnkeisa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

May 2011Umeå Universitet

Outline

• 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 onlyWeb 2.0 = communication

*Jahnke & Prilla, 2008 (Eds. Back, Gronau, Tochtermann)

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

…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 networkGlobal Young Faculty (GYF), Tech group,

survey about Internet behavior „Being 3.0“

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Social Media in higher education

Jury member RCO: Courses Campus Online

Teaching/

learning

processes

New Technologies

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

How to solve these problems regarding learning with new technologies?

ThesisIt depends on the DESIGN –

socio-technical & educational design

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Overview “Designing the interdependencies”

Inter-dependencies

Use of Technology(Social Media)

Teaching and LearningCultures (different faculties, disciplines, subjects)

Didactical approaches(e.g., fostering creativity, PBL)

Design-Based

Research

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

How to design (develop & evaluate)

Technology-enhanced learningsuccessfully?

Research question

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

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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)

What does “successful” mean?(regarding computer-enhanced learning)

Jahnke, Pleul, Terkowsky, Tekkaya 2010

Suchman 1987/ 2007Orlikowski, 1996

Coakes, 2002Herrmann/Loser/Jahnke 2007

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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 studiesSTS 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

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 studiesSTS 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

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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”

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Methodology:Design-Based Research

Reeves, Herrington & Oliver 2005Wang & Hannafin, 2005

Analysis (Evaluation,…)

Design (Development,…)

Data collection / - analysis

Methods: • Interviews• participant observation• questionnaires • login files • evaluation • …

Changingpractice

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

TitleCreativity in (Technology-Enhanced) learning cultures;BMBF 2008-2011, together with IMTM/Bochum U

Methods

i. Interviews with experts(20 outstanding & ”normal” teachers, 2009)

ii. Online survey about creativity-stages (2010)

iii.Creating ‘creative learning scenarios‘ (2010)

iv.Creating ‘trainings/modules for teachers’ (2010)

v. Evaluation of intervention / redesign (2010-2011)

DaVINCI“What is a creative effort given by your students?”

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

6-facets-model: fostering creativityin higher education

Jahnke &Haertel, 2010ournal “Das Hochschulwesen”

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

50% 62% 42% 47% 55% 56%n=587

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 outcomes1. 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

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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)

DaVinci – more results….

6 facets of creativity support

6 facets of creativity support

4 computer-enhanced learning

scenarios

4 computer-enhanced learning

scenarios

2 modules (train the teacher)

2 modules (train the teacher)

4-field-matrix

4-field-matrix

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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)

PeTEX

Jahnke et al. 2009DELFI conf

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

1. Learning Modules

(interactive tasks)

3. Reflective learning

(learners write a report, get reviews)

2. Preparing and doing an

EXP

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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. 2010REV, Stockholm

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Final evaluation 2010

PeTEX Video“Demo_Petex.avi”

Informatics Portal University of Dortmund = 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)

InPUD

Designing

designing, development

continuing improvements

Jahnke Diss 2006Jahnke 2008, Krems

& Journal CiHB, 2010

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

InPUD Portal

Foren

www.inpud.de

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Study management (examples)Courses (examples)

Discussion boards (Forum)

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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)

Number of contributions

n=1 478(from 2 000 students)

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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

What community members do…

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Comparison 2002 and 2009The 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

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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.

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Lessons learned Knowledge sharing is more effective with an STC than with Web 1.0 conditions onlyAn 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)

InPUD…

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

CBT1980…

CSCL 1990…

Social Media (Web 2.0)2004…

…

Educational mash-ups

Creative lifelong learning cultures

2011...

E-learning over time

Jahnke 2009,STC in: Whitworth‘s Handbook

Jahnke 2006, presentation in York, UK

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

People

Process

embedded into institutional cultures

Fostering creativity inlearning cultures

supported by social media

Skills, competencies (e.g., i-literacies, creative thinking/actions)

Students(the reflective student;

„Being 3.0“) a

Teachers (professional development

ICTML!) b

- Designing newcourses & 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

Research plan

How to bring innovations into practice?

g

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Thanks for your attention!

• Publications? Please ask, I send it to you

• http://www.isa-jahnke.de

Backup

a) What media-/ i-literacies do students have? Study about „Being 3.0“ and awareness (1 year)

b) 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)

c) 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)

d) 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)

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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?

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

Transformation of higher education Creative lifelong learning cultures

Universities today• Central learning locations

• Focus on formal learningin 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

2011-05-04isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se

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 isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se 38

complex problems

authenticity

multiple perspectives

articulation andreflection

socialexchange

Situated learning needs…

Lave & Wenger 1991