VO@NET – ICT for Development

Investigating archetypes of use and refining the understanding of PBL-processes - Experiences from

the VO@NET project

www.voanet.dk

Thomas RybergE-learning Lab, Department of Communication Aalborg University.E-mail: ryberg@hum.aau.dkE-learning lab: www.ell.aau.dk

This work is published under a Creative Commons license:Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

Outline

• Short on the VO@NET-project• Archetypes of use derived from 30

courses in VO@NET• Discussion of PBL – experiences

derived from the VO@NET project – the need to work with a more flexible understanding of the Aalborg model

VO@NET – a part of a larger constellation

• U-NEXUS (DUCED) Copenhagen Business School (CBS) Aalborg University (AAU) Technical University of Denmark (DTU) The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts- School of Architecture (RDA) Roskilde University (RUC)

• SACUDE-I&UA University of Botswana (UB) University of Cape Town (UCT) University of the Western Cape (UWC) University of Witwatersrand (WITS) University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN)

• MUCED-I&UA Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Universiti Malaya (UM) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)

• TUCED-I&UA Chiang Mai University (CMU) Chulalonghorn University (CU) Mahidol University (MU) Prince of Songkla University (PSU)

LUCEDLinked University Consortia for Environment

and Development - Industry and Urban Areas

Close VO@NET collaboration partners

Malaysia (MUCED)• Universiti Malaya (UM)• Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia (UKM)• Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)Thailand (TUCED)• Chulalongkorn University• Mahidol University• Prince of Songkla University• Chiang Mai UniversityDenmark (Parts of ”the artist formerly known as

DUCED”)• E-learning lab – Aalborg University• Environment and Resources – Tecnical University of DenmarkSpain• University of Barcelona

Scope and aim of the VO@NET-project

• To strengthen electronic interconnectivity between the consortium universities' existing network, through the establishment of a virtual network. Thereby, enhancing network building, joint course development, communication and information exchange for higher education. 

• This objective was divided 4 sub-objectives or component groups:

1. Establishment of institutional and administrative framework to ensure the sustainability of the virtual network and reinforce the existing network creating (DTU)

2. To establish a conceptual pedagogic framework to identify key educational and cultural approaches for a successful implementation of a virtual network (AAU)

3. To design and implement an open-access Web-based Education and Networking service (WEN) to enhance the interconnectivity of the existing network (DTU)

4. To test the virtual network through development of educational curricula, the design of online courses and running of those courses (MUCED, TUCED, DUCED)

What were the outcomes• MU, CMU and PSU

Each produced one course• CU, MUCED

Have produced a number of courses (MUCED 23), (CU, 14)• Different types of courses and outcomes

On-campus courses, where the courses serve as a supplement to the class-room teaching

Off-Campus courses where there are no physical meetings Some courses focused more on combining content and

activities, whereas others have focused more on content (repositories) – in a pedagogical/organisational perspective there is both a breadth and a depth.

Some have implemented Moodle as an institutional infrastructure, thus focusing not on one course but have made space for several courses to be implemented at the institutions

Four basic modes of delivery

Archetypes of use

• (Institutional Infrastructures) – cross-type pedagogical use

• Pedagogical modes or archetypes: Content delivery: Main function is organization

and publication of teaching material Conferencing and Communication: Main

function is dialogues in asynchronous (text) media or through synchronous chats

Group work and Collaboration: Main aim is coordination of group activities. The purpose of the activities can either be production oriented or just socially motivated

Institutional Infrastructures

Institutional Infrastructures

Content delivery

Content delivery

• Content vs. activity More focus on providing content to the

students e.g. Flash animations, notes, texts and less on designing pedagogical activities

Conferencing and communication

Conferencing and communication

• Discussion and communication More focus on the interaction between

students and teachers; focus on creating pedagogical online activities e.g. Discussions or other shared tasks

Group work and Collaboration

Group work and Collaboration

• Group work, collaboration and mutual problem solving Focus on case-work, PBL; group work

between students on different tasks or longer lasting case studies or projects

The archetypes of use• Are not mutually exclusive! They are metaphors of the most

dominant use – a course seldom rely only on content, but difference in whether the activities are online or in the class room

• Can’t be directly connected with values on pedagogical change e.g. Content delivery courses in VO@NET completely changed classroom interactions

• Activity vs. Content a basic distinction – also expressed in differences between e.g. Learning Objects and LAMS – Learning Activity Management System

• Which metaphor is the most suitable depends on the context and conditions in which the course is embedded – what is the pedagogical purpose of bringing in a VLE?

PBL-POPP - theoretically

• Some differences – historically – between the Aalborg Model of POPP/PBL and other interpretations: The focus is not on the usual PBL approach […] where

a problem is defined by the tutor and given to the learner as their starting point for PBL. In this traditional model, students acquire knowledge and skills through staged sequences of problems presented in context, together with associated learning materials and support from teachers […]. The kind of PBL examined in this paper occurs in an open, adult learning context where learners, who are already professional people, work in small distributed e-learning groups and negotiate amongst themselves the focus of the problem (McConnel 2002)

PBL/POPP-processes

• Rounding up the usual suspects: PBL-POPP – The Aalborg Model: 50% Course - 50%

project Long-term (semester)

4 months! Students own and define

the problem to work with Decide methods, the-

ory, empirial invest. Solution – ”open ended” An institutional pedagogy – not easily applicable in

short-term or single courses

Some differences between PBL & Aalborg Model

POPP/PBLAalborg Model• Problem formulation and

problem setting (enquiry)• Exemplary and interdisciplinary• Participants control• Project based• Action learning• Long time collaboration -1/2

year

Other PBL interpretations• Problem solving

• Disciplinary

• Teacher / curriculum control• Individual / project• Task driven• Ad hoc

The problem of problems!• It is difficult to apply the Aalborg model directly to a course

e.g. In VO@NET there was a 12 weeks fully online training course for professionals on a specific method (Green Productivity), which the students had to learn through case work.

• Different from Aalborg model in the sense that case and method was chosen – else students could have picked another, similar method or theory – still we would argue that we could call it ”adapted PBL”

• There is a need for us at AAU (and others) to work with conceptualisations of the model to make it fit other constellations and other needs – e.g. shorter term, more ”curriculum oriented” environments, single course

• Especially because the Aalborg model is NOT a course model – it is an institutional pedagogy that pervades all levels. Adopting the full-scale Aalborg model is a major organisational change

Basic distinctions

A conceptualisation of PBL

• PBL can be conceptualised as three central dimensions or processes that are stretched between teacher and participant control: Problem – who defines and re-formulate? Work Process – who chooses theory, methods

and ways of working? Solution – who owns the solution?

Conclusions

• One can imagine different more flexible constructions of PBL: Problem can be given by teachers, but the work process be

decided by participants Problem can be open but the working processes and methods

can be fixed Allows for variable and more flexible constructions of PBL-

processes These dimensions might be useful in practical course

construction and in the theoretical discussions of what constitutes POPP/PBL

Further readings :D

• VO@NET – Project component 2 report Available from:

http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=304

• Journal Article: Ryberg, T., Koottatep, S., Pengchai, P., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2006).

Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments – a case study from the VOANET project. In: Studies in Continuing Education - Special Issue on “Advances in Adult E-Learning” Issue 2. Ed. David McConnell. (to appear in 2006).