AAU EATRain Presen EA Training by MikeJenny

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 54

									     Aalborg University (AAU)
           WP2 Leader:
“Web 2.0 and Active, Problem-based
          Learning in EA”
                                Presented by:
                               Thomas Ryberg
                             Assistant Professor
  E-Learning Lab – Center for User Driven Innovation, Learning and Design
                               www.ell.aau.dk
                      Department of Communication
                            ryberg@hum.aau.dk
Organisation & Team
 A brief introduction to:

• Aalborg University
• e-Learning Lab – Center for User Driven
Innovation, Learning and Design
• The EA-Team (so far)
• Expectations, input, output, perceived risks
             Aalborg University (AAU)


• Aalborg is a town
  in Denmark
• Denmark is
  situated in the
  northern Europe –
  Scandinavia.
• The population of
  Denmark is 5,2
  million people.
     The location of Aalborg University (AAU)

•   Aalborg is situated in
    the Northern part of
    Jutland.
•   The ”city” of Aalborg
    houses app. 160.000
    people
•   In your terms – a town
    
     Short facts on Aalborg University

                           •   Aalborg University was inaugurated in 1974
                           •   In 2001 more than 12.000 students within:
                               Engineering, Natural sciences, Social
                               Sciences and Humanities




•   Aalborg University now has a budget on app.
    1.000.000.000 DKR (1 RM = 1,5 DKR)
•   Aalborg University’s pedagogical
    foundation is PBL (or POPP/PoPBL)
•   For more information please visit:
    http://www.aau.dk
                                              Research Programme
                                                              Objective
    The aim is to create a dynamic research, development and resource centre that gathers and
   contributes to development of the most recent knowledge within its research domains through
                  participating in regional, national, and international collaborations.
Research
focus                                                                                                      Methodologies
• ICT, Learning and                                                                                        • Design-based research /
collaboration                                                                                              developmental research
• User Centered Design                   Center for User Driven Innovation,                                • Dialogue design
• User Driven Innovation                                                                                   • Action research
• Interaction Design                           Learning and Design                                         • Ethnographic inspired enquiry
• Human Computer                                                                                           • User Driven Innovation
Interaction
• Tools exploration and
experiments
                                                                                                           Domains
Theoretical issues                                                                                         • Education
• Technology, ecology, enactment and                                                                       • Health Care
remediation
• Learning, experiences, social construction and
                                                       Tools and Techniques                                • Digital Governance
                                                       • Pictures and videos to support storytelling
identity                                                                                                   However, the research is not
                                                       • Models and diagrams to convey underlying
• Project based Learning, Networks, Communities                                                            limited to these domains.
                                                       categories and order
of Practice
                                                       • Miscellaneous materials for building prototypes
• Mixed mode collaboration and communication
                                                       and performances
spaces
• Indirect design, user driven design, local design,
learning design, pedagogical design
                                                         Networked                            Participatory
   HCI              CSCL CSCW                              Learning                             Design                      TEL
                         The Diversity –
             Recent, current and future PhD Projects

                                    Surveillance and
                                                                Potentials for
                                    Ethics in a web
          Development of                                        learning in 3D
                                    2.0 context –
          PBL at Universidad                                    worlds and the
                                    surveillance as
          Nacional (Costa                                       role of avatar-
                                    play and peer
          Rica) through                                         mediation in
                                    monitoring
          building                                              CSdCL
          Communities of                                         Supporting the
          Practice                                                   mobility of
                                          Health                       diabetes
 Design       Identity                                             patients with
                            HCI                                     technology
Technology       Learning           PBL
                                                             Youth and the
                     Education                             development of
                                   User Driven Innovation identity through
Communities of
  Practice                                               their use of Social
                                                          Networking Sites
              IT-support for
              people with             Multiplayer online       Development of
              disabilities.           gaming from a            Communities of
              Making a                learning and             Practice and
              Computer Science        identity                 networks between
              School (Costa           perspective              SME‟s
              Rica) Accessible
              for Blind Students
    ICT for Development
 Developing and building local capacity
    within the area of technology
    enhanced learning through joint
    course development (engineering and
    environment)
     B Developing technological
        infrastructure (open source) and
        capacity
     B Developing pedagogical practice
        e.g. more student centered
        learning, PBL

   Design         Identity
                              Culture    Negotiation
Open Source        Learning                      CSCL
                                   PBL
   Technologies
                     Education     Socio-cultural
  Communities of                      learning
    Practice        •   SUDESCA       theory
                    •   VISCA
                    •   VOANET
                    •   ELAC
                    •   Asian University for
                        Women
                                        http://www.learnatwork.info/


        Learn@Work
    •    Growing interest in learning
         through and at the work
         place
    •    Learner support via
         traditional/online means to
         encourage reflective practice
    •    Engagement, motivate and
         promote reflective and
         independent learning
Tools        Technology

        Co-development
                              Design Methods
Workplace learning
                         Education

 The project delivered a design system for online
 and distance support. The outcomes was guides,
 case studies and toolkit to enable educators to
 effectively prepare adult
 learners for work based and work placed learning.
  The CoED Design Card Generator
FEEDBACK:  feedback-motivated electricity consumption based on
        user-driven innovation with 8 families




                          Installed and under test in 120 households




                              Ellen Christiansen: ech@hum.aau.dk
                              Anne Marie Kanstrup: kanstrup@hum.aau.dk
But many other projects
                                For more
                              information
                                 contact

                      The Senior researchers
                            Professor and Director of eLL:
                            Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld
                            lone@hum.aau.dk

                            PhD, Associate Professor:
                            Ann Bygholm
                            ann@hum.aau.dk




                Or visit: http://www.ell.aau.dk
               The EA-Team

• Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld, MA, Ph.D
    Professor in ICT, Learning and Design
    Director of: e_learning Lab. Center for User-driven
     Innovation, Learning and Design
• Thomas Ryberg, MA, Ph.D
    Assistant Professor
    AAU: EA Train WP2 Project Manager (and
     researcher)
• Ulla Konnerup, MA
    Research Assistant
    EA Train WP2 researcher
• Joan Vuust Milborg
    Administration
  Expectations, input, output, perceived
                   risks
• Our expectations, input and output
     Contribute with ICT pedagogical competence and knowledge about active,
      innovative problem based learning methodologies related to new social media
      (web 2.0) and their potential for initiating new teaching and learning practices
     Contribute with state-of-the-art research to the scientific community (e.g. peer-
      reviewed journal articles)
     Contribute to the development of succesful courses, platform, methodology
      and all 
• Perceived risks:
     We have not been partners from the start and thus you probably have a better
      idea of the perspective, intentions etc. of others
     We are not (yet) very knowledgeable about EA
     One concern is too little negotiation and clarification between workpackages
      about perspectives, motives, basic understandings (e.g. of ict-supported
      learning and pedagogy) – in the plan workpackages are sequential rather than
      running simultaneously
        • Clarify what kind of ideal course various partners envision
        • Strive to understand the perspectives, methods and approaches of each
          other
Project objectives, approach to be
 followed, milestones, expected
        outputs and results
                               Overview

• Main Workpackage (WP2) (Month 7-12)
    Web 2.0 and Active Problem-based Learning in EA (task 2.1- 2.2)
      • To examine the use of active, problem-based learning approaches in the
        training and teaching of EA.
      • To identify means in order to electronically support training and learning of the
        skills, knowledge and abilities that emerged from WP1.
      • To identify how Web 2.0 related technologies could enhance the training and
        learning of skills, knowledge an abilities emerged from WP1
      • To consolidate the derived knowledge from this WP with the development of an
        training and learning methodology which will capitalize on the EA learning
        ontology to identify and address learning needs
• Two tasks (Task 2-1 month 1-3) and (Task 2-2 month 3-6)
    Probably these two will need to overlap more/run simultaneously
                                                 Tasks

•   Task 2.1 (Months 1-3). Active learning in EA
        identifies what active, problem-based learning approaches could be incorporated in university-level
         education and VET in order trainees to acquire the required technical skills, knowledge and attitudes and
         to develop the innovation skills emerged from wp1. From these approaches specific practices will be
         developed.
•   How to operationalise:
      Key issue: aligning perspectives in relation to an EA ontology (skills and competences,
       training and learning) – what are the skills students should have (operational, critical-
       reflective, constructive, problem solving) – various levels of learning
         • Bilateral video/skype meetings
         • Possibly holding common design workshops (co-creating, discussing ontology)
      Identify existing approaches and methodologies – identify key persons/environments
         • Input from partners
         • literature search and review
         • Input and collaboration with local (AAU) researchers working with EA
         • Producing a report (preferably article) review and discussing various approaches in
             relation to the proposed ontology – based on this a learning methodology or
             practices can be suggested (kind of learning – PBL, self-study, work based learning,
             skill-and-drill?)
                   Identifying possible outlets for the report/article (conferences, journals)
• Task 2.2 (Months 3-6). EA Training and Teaching based on ICT
        This Task identifies how the methods and practices that emerged from Task 2.1 could be
         enhanced through the use of Web 2.0 technologies.
•   How to operationalise:
      Key issue: Close collaboration and alignment with WP3 in relation to the course
       model and the learning platform to be developed (?)
         • Bilateral video/skype meetings
         • Possibly holding common design workshops (co-creating, discussing course
            model / platform)
      Enhancing and clarifying the pedagogical potential of web 2.0 and social media
         • Literature search, review and synthesis
         • Producing a report (preferably article) reviewing and discussing the potentials
            of social media – more specifically in relation to the pedagogical model chosen
            in the project – the report can also outline various scenarios and how web 2.0
            tools and approaches can be utilised in these scenarios
                         Deliverable

• Deliverable:
    Reports an innovative EA active, problem-based learning
     methodology (i.e. new educational and VET practices and
     methods) that capitalises on the principles of Web 2.0 and the
     related technologies e.g. social networking, blogs, wikis and the
     like. This methodology will capitalise on the EA learning ontology
     to identify and address learning needs.
    Key issue:
       • How the social media will/should be incorporated depends on
         the project‟s view of learning and pedagogical approach –
         alignment between partners
    Our wish:
       • Report can take the form of e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles
         or be easily transformed into article
Innovative Pedagogies and Social
        Media / Web 2.0
Context - Introduction to Danish
      Educational system
           Quote from the World Bank

• Today, in a number of scientific disciplines, elements of
  factual knowledge taught in the first year of study may
  become obsolete before graduation.
• The learning process now needs to be increasingly based on
  the capacity to find and access knowledge and to apply it in
  problem solving.
• The new competencies that employers value in the
  knowledge economy have to do with oral and written
  communications, teamwork, peer teaching, creativity,
  envisioning skills, resourcefulness, and the ability to adjust to
  change.
• (The World Bank, 2002, p. 29-30)

• From memorisation to innovation and creation of knowledge
                  “New” challenges

• Work and education:
   Focusing on knowledge creation and innovation is
    increasingly important
   Innovation and knowledge creation is:
     • Learning or creating what is not yet there (or combining
       existing „pieces‟ into something new) – fits well with PBL
   Increasingly interdisciplinary and intercultural
   Learning and Innovation not only forward-oriented but
    intertwined with horizontal or sideways movements and
    negotiations across competing or complementary domains
    and activity systems (Engeström, 2004)
      • E.g. between work places and students at university or
        learning between practitioneers from various
        companies
            The Aalborg Model
• Problem Based Learning
   - Based on real-life problems

• Project Organised Education
   - Project work supported by lecture courses
• Group Work
   - groups of four to six students
   - supervised by lecturers/professors
• Interdisciplinary Studies
   - Integration of theory and practice
   - Focus on Learning to Learn and methodological skills
         Theoretical Background of POPBL


•   In our view learning is not a
    process of transferring knowledge
    to the students – as if the student
    is a passive receiver.
•   Much learning in institutions are
    directed towards a certain
    curriculum or canonized set of
    knowledge that the student must
    learn (or rather memorize)
•   Much assessment is a
    measurement of how much of this
    knowledge the students have
    memorized – not on their ability
    to produce new knowledge or to
    use their knowledge in real
    settings
          Theoretical Background of POPBL

• Knowledge and learning is
  created by the students –
  not given to the students.
• Learning and knowledge
  construction is facilitated
  by collaboration –
  dialogue, critical reviews,
  coordinating efforts.
• Knowledge and learning
  should be about
  construction, and not re-
  construction of knowledge
• Learning is about
  producing new
  knowledge, solutions,
  theories and methods.
   Lecture Courses and Project Work

       project work : a major assignment within a given subject-related
50 %   framework determined for each semester.

25 %   project related courses supporting the project work
       Evaluated as oral examinations based on the project report.

       mandatory courses relating to the overall academic profile of the
25 %   curriculum. Evaluated through individual written or oral examinations.
                 PBL/POPP-processes

• PBL-POPP – The Aalborg Model:
    Long-term (semester)
     4 months!
    Students own and define
     the problem to work with
    Decide methods, theory, empirial investigations
    Solution – ”open ended”
    An institutional pedagogy – not easily applicable in short-term or
     single courses
   Typical components of project work

• The thematic framework of the semester is presented.
• Early in the semester the students brainstorm on ideas for
  projects within the framework – groups are formed. This is
  often done solely by the students.
• Students produce an early problem formulation and synopsis
  of the intended project – they are given a supervisor.
• They scan for theories, methods, cases etc. that will help
  them solve or answer the problem they have – or help them to
  describe and analyse the problem domain.
• E.g. ”How does the integration of computers into the
  classroom affect learning?” – This problem is a very open
  ended question, that can be investigated in many different
  ways. The students will have to:
   Typical components of project work

• Find a case, identify methods on how to investigate the
  problem (purely theoretical, through interviews, video-
  observation and analysis, questionnaires, ethnographic
  observation etc.)
• They write a chapter on the methods selected, and why they
  investigate the case in that manner
• They identify theories or theoretical concepts that will help
  them understand their problem
• They (often) conduct empirical investigations, that are
  analysed.
• All this is done in collaboration with the supervisor, who helps
  the students to identify relevant methods, theories etc.
Problem Solving Process
          Assessment of the students

• Some courses have individual examinations – oral or written –
  small assignment 15 pages.
• Some courses are relieved through the ”project examination”
• The fruit of the project work is a project-report on app. 100
  pages.
• The students, teacher and censor critically discuss the project
  and the students are given an individual grade. An
  examination last app. 2-5 hours.
• Now – unfortunately – the group work is assessed not as a
  group but as individual exams based on the group report
            The Aalborg Model

• Sometimes PBL as a term is used in
  connection with pedagogies and methods,
  that are not similar to the Aalborg Model.
• Some differ between Problem Based
  Learning and different definitions of the
  Aalborg Model (Problem Oriented Project
  Pedagogy (POPP) or Project Oriented
  Problem Based Learning – (POPBL))…
  Some differences between PBL &
     Aalborg Model POPP/PBL


Aalborg Model                         Other PBL interpretations
• Problem formulation and problem     • Problem solving
   setting (enquiry)
• Exemplary and interdisciplinary     •   Disciplinary
• Participants control
• Project based                       •   Teacher / curriculum control
• Action learning                     •   Individual / project
• Long time collaboration -1/2 year   •   Task driven
                                      •   Ad hoc
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?
 New emerging forms of PBL to
     tackle the challenges
• Mega-projects (all students work on same problem)
• Short-term intensive processes of innovation based
  on (real) interdisciplinary work – Collaboration in
  groups but were scattered across campus (Aalborg,
  Ballerup, Esbjerg) (WOFIE)
• Increasing intercultural and distributed (distance)
  collaboration/cooperation (e.g. Stanford and AAU
  students working together) (WOFIE II?)
    While we have relatively good ideas on how to support for
     close collaboration in groups - other modes of
     collaboration are less explored in terms of ICT
      • Boundary crossing, negotiation across domains, multi-voiced
        dialogues, inter-group relations, inter-cultural collaboration
Technology Enhanced Learning
 New technological practices
  Archetypes of educational use
             of ICT
• Pedagogical modes or archetypes (Nyvang, Dirckinck-
  Holmfeld & Tolsby) – the first three are pretty well known:
    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
    Focused group work and Collaboration: Main aim is
     coordination of small-group activities. The purpose of the
     activities can either be production oriented or just socially
     motivated
       • Supporting:
            Negotiation of meaning
            Coordination
            Management of resources
    Online flexible, distributed, fleeting and networked:
       • Support different types of learning processes and pedagogical
         approaches. These are flexibly constructed by stitching or
         „patchworking‟ together different types of systems, materials,
         resources and service
E-Learning or ’technology enhanced learning’ generations

           Type                     Concept of technology       Learning approach

1960-70s   Computer based           Automatisation and          Behaviorism
           training                 rationalisation

1970s      Intelligent computer     Technology as               Cognitivism
           Based Training           ‟intelligent‟ automat
1980s      Micro worlds             Toy and tool, Exploration   Constructivism

1990s      Computer Supported       Communication,              Socio constructivism
           Collaborative Learning   Collaboration               Socio-cultural
                                                                Social learning theory

2000s      Virtual Learning         Virtual Learning            Social learning theory
           environments             environments (VLEs and      Workplace and Informal
           /blended learning        LMS) - technologies.        learning

2000s      Networked learning       Learning infrastructure     Learning in communities of
                                    Ubiquitous ecology          practice /networks of
                                    Web 2.0 – Assemblages       practice - Multimembership
                                    of interoperable services   and boundary crossing –
                                    PLE‟s ”personal” learning   formal/informal –
                                    environments                online/offline
                                                                Workplace learning
        Web 2.0 (or whatever) core
                  points
• Technological dimensions:
     Blogs, podcast, wikis, tags RSS-feeds, web as platform (Ajax, Java-script)
     Rich Internet Applications (RIA) – Google docs, web-office
• Conceptual dimensions
     User ratings/reviews
     Folksonomies
     Sharing, collaborating, exchanging
     Bottom-up – architecture of participation
     User Generated content – but rather than finished materials/data -
      ongoing evolving streams and continuous „dialogues‟
     Stigmergic aggregation and distribution – unconscious wisdom of crowds
• Popular services
     Social networking sites (myspace, facebook, del.icio.us)
        • Ego-centric – personal networks around profiles
        • Object-centric – networks around shared material
     Personalised resource centers (Igoogle, Live, NetVibes, Yahoo 360)
        • Aggregation of media, resources and „news‟ from multiple sources
• Happens across different social aggregations or constellations with
  the learner in the center – utilising both strong and weak ties
   Key differences between Web
         1.0 and Web 2.0
• Users as first class entities in the system
    prominent profile pages featuring e.g: age, sex, location
    Testimonials, or comments about the user by other users.
• The ability to form connections between users
    links to other users who are “friends” membership in “groups”
    subscriptions or RSS feeds of “updates” from other users
• The ability to post content in many forms: photos, videos,
  blogs
    Comments and ratings on other users‟ content
    Tagging of own or others‟ content
    Some ability to control privacy and sharing.
• More technical features, including a public API to allow third–
  party enhancements and “mash–ups,”
    embedding of various rich content types (e.g., Flash videos), and
     communication with other users through internal e–mail or IM
     systems.
                      Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
                      by Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy
                      First Monday, Volume 13 Number 6 - 2 June 2008
                      http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2125/1972
                      Object-centric

• Sharing links, bookmarks,
  references
• Aggregation, distribution
  across:
• Folksonomy – information
  architecture “designed” by
  users
• Search, tags, archives –
  relies on the power of
  weak ties, networks of
  interests and trust –
  “collective intelligence”
  emerges
• RSS, Refer, Bibtex,
  Endnote
                    Object-centric
• Sharing, exchanging,
  watching, rating,
  commenting
• User generated
  content: video,
  pictures, audio
• Search, tags,
  clusters, popularity,
  mass, picture search
  (face recognition)
• Distribute,
  aggregate through
  widgets, RSS, links,
  Java-scripts across:
            Personal & location based
• Networking, profiles,
  interests, strong and
  weak ties,
  communication,
  discussion, identity,
  sharing Closeness,
  placeness, locality
  discovering,
  networking
• Heavily widgetised,
  and mediatised –
  audio, video
• Distribute,
  aggregate,
  convergence, GPS,
  OpenAPIs, SMS,
  mobility across:
                              “Software”
•   Like regular apps – but
    they‟re online – web-
    office, calendar, news
    reader, Web OS etc.
•   Also stand alone apps
    – Google Earth
•   Discover, search,
    location, placeness,
    closeness
•   Collaborative editing,
    sharing calendars,
    Social networks –
    sharing placemarks,
    layers
•   Integration with
    maps, wikipedia,
    external sites
    Broad trends within the Tech‟ed sphere
•   From hierarchical structures based on courses and topics towards more
    student centred networks
•   From distribution to more horizontal patterns of exchange – peer-learning
•   From Learning Management Systems (LMS)  Personal Learning Environments
    (PLEs)
•   Encouraging exchange, sharing of knowledge and students‟ production of
    knowledge and artefacts
•   Encouraging the production of personal portfolios – personal repositories
•   Encouraging knowledge sharing between groups – and enhancing focus on
    external resources and persons
   Sharing across different social
           constellations
Strength of             Homebase(s) –
tie                                             Glued together by RSS,
                        profile PLE
                                                Widgets, „open standards‟,
              Own content                       open APIs – Streams of
                                                continuously evolving
                             Friends‟           „data‟ and „information‟ that
              Groups‟        content            can be somewhat easily
              content                           manipulated


           Shared fields of interest –
           imagined communities

                                 Collectives‟
We all become                    content –
entrance points into             aggregated
complex                          other
(overlapping)
networks
                   From LMS to PLEs

• Divide management and
  learning
• Focus on learning activities
• Individual and collaborative
  tools
• From huge all-in-one-systems
  to light, interoperable systems
  and services (LMSs certainly
  still have a role and many have
  become more open)
• Creating highly individualised
  and yet inherently collective
  environments
• Drawing on „flow‟ and
  „movements‟ across strong and
  weak ties and the different
  social constellations
                                    (Dalsgaard, 2006):
                                    http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/
                                    2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm
   Networked Individualism –
trajectories, boundary crossing
              – PLEs
       Flickr
                            YouTube
                Bloglines

                                         Dodgeball




    Systems gluing together services

                              Furl
  Bibsonomy
                  MySpace

                                      Librarything
                 3rd Generation PBL?

• 1st Generation – “original” models of PBL developed e.g. at the
  Danish reform universities, Maastricht and McMaster models
  in medicine
    ICT as tool in co-located work (word processing)
• 2nd Generation –mixed models developed according to
  cultural diversity and subject areas
    ICT as medium for close collaboration & communication
• 3rd Generation - Innovation is global, based on global
  knowledge sharing and networks - Combination of ICT tools,
  international, intercultural collaboration and negotiation in
  processes of innovation
    ICT as enabling „flows‟, „streams‟ and „movements‟ between
     actors and resources in complex networks across various
     boundaries and social aggregations / constellations
    Supporting a continuum of „flows‟ between strong-tied
     collaboration and more weakly-tied „collective‟ networks
                            WOFIE

• A four day‟s intensive course – run with a very strict „script‟
  describing tasks
• Student groups scattered over different locations/cities
• Target of the course – to develop the students competences
  within innovation and entrepreneurship
• Students were to develop ideas, concepts, services, products
• Varied between different group activities and inspirational
  lectures
•Supported by an ICT-
environment to enable:
     •Communication and
     dialogue (Q&A with experts)
     •Overview of activities and
     documentation
     •WOFIE-TV transmissions
     •Brain-bank – to identify
     other student‟s competences

								
To top