macedonia icamp

47
Kai Pata Center of Educational Technology, Tallinn University Designing learning experiences for soft competence acquisition: novative, inclusive, interactive & intercultural lear and beyond

Upload: kai-pata

Post on 03-Dec-2014

1.575 views

Category:

Technology


1 download

DESCRIPTION

workshop slides

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Macedonia Icamp

Kai Pata

Center of Educational Technology, Tallinn University

Designing learning experiences for soft competence acquisition:

*iCamp: innovative, inclusive, interactive & intercultural learning campus

and beyond

Page 2: Macedonia Icamp

What can we do?• What is iCamp doing: overview of what we

learnt in field trials

• Towards new learning design model: interventional, ecological

• Planning for activities and landscapes

• Recording affordances of learning spaces

• How to visualize learning space as a niche

• iCamp Folio testing

Page 3: Macedonia Icamp

iCamp project (http://www.icamp.eu)

• Intervention strategies for educational design in a formal higher-educational setting

• Supporting competence advancement in self-directing, social networking, and collaboration

• Applying the distributed web 2.0 landscapes in parallel with institutional learning systems

• Favouring learning across national borders

Page 4: Macedonia Icamp

Intervention is needed

• Learners should not only plan, conduct and monitor their activities in institutionally offered walled and protected learning environments.

• For achieving their various personal and group objectives, learners must gain competences of choosing the most suitable environments and plan their activities.

Page 5: Macedonia Icamp

How should we teach it?• Challenging learning environments and real-life tasks• Building Personal Learning Environments (PLE)• Getting connected with other PLEs• Competences to cope with tools• Planning activities • On my own and with the others• Collaboration and networking• Self-directing and -reflecting

• Interoperable tools?

Page 6: Macedonia Icamp

Group topic Group topic

Group topic

COLLABORATION IN TRIAL 1

Regulation tool shared weblog, synchronous

chat tools

Content creation tool shared

publishing (shared weblog,

googledocs)

Monitoring in shared weblog

An example case

Page 7: Macedonia Icamp

T E C H N I C A L

S U P P O R T

W E B L O G

l i n k

l i n k

G R O U P W E B L O G

l i n k

G R O U P

A R T I F A C T

F l a s h m e e t i n g . c o m

P E D A G O G I C A L

W E B L O G

S k y p e . c o m

W E B A R T I F A C T S

l i n k

R e g u l a t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l

a c t i v i t i e s

S u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s

R e g u l a t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s

S u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s

S u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c a n d l e a r n i n g l a n d s c a p e

r e l a t e d p r o d u c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s

R e g u la t i v e

c o n v e r s a t i o n a l

a c t i v it i e s

S u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

p r o d u c t i v e

a c t i v i t i e s

I N D I V I D U A L A R T I F A C T S

G R O U P

A R T I F A C T

R e g u l a t i v e a n d

s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s

S u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

p r o d u c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s

S u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

p r o d u c t i v e

a c t i v i t i e s

R e g u l a t i v e a n d

s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s

R e g u l a t i v e a n d

s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c

c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s

r e p o r t s

s c h e d u l e

l i t e r a t u r e

l i n k

a r t i f a c t s

D o c s . g o o g l e . c o m

several

meetings

People perceive tools differently

Page 8: Macedonia Icamp

iCampers

Group topic Group topic

Group topic

COLLABORATION AND SELF-DIRECTING IN TRIAL 2

Regulation with individual distributed blogs,

synchronous chat tools

Content creation tool shared wiki

Monitoring in blogs

Learning contract in personal distributed blog/(personal wiki)

Page 9: Macedonia Icamp

• Most of the groups used conquer-and-divide cooperation (but not collaboration) strategy.

• Each member did their parts (most of them used Word and then later copied-and-pasted the text in their blogs for group-mates/facilitator to view/comment).

• Towards the final stage, students glued up the parts together as the final joint artifact.

It didn’t work so well!

Page 10: Macedonia Icamp

NETWORKING AND SELF-DIRECTING IN TRIAL 3

iCampers

Group topic Group topic

Group topic

Monitoring in aggregated blogs

Learning contract in personal distributed blog/(personal wiki)

Regulation with individual distributed blogs, group spaces,

synchronous chat tools

Content creation with various tools

Page 12: Macedonia Icamp

Introducing the assignment

Toolbox links

Specific tags

Participants weblogs

Facilitator’s weblogs

Facilitation weblog in wordpress: http://htk.tlu.ee/elearning/

Page 13: Macedonia Icamp

Facilitator’s weblog

Feedback and assignments

Monitoring comments and feeds

Page 14: Macedonia Icamp

Individual landscapes

Filter comment feeds

Pulling postings

Mashed filtered groupfeed

Filter group bookmarks

Page 15: Macedonia Icamp

Self-reflecting personal learning experiences

Blogs can be effectively used for self reflection using various templates.

Page 16: Macedonia Icamp

The student fills in personal contract.

In the middle of the project another student and the facilitator will comment students’ success in the contract.

In the end of the project contract is used as part of evaluation

Self-directing and personal contracts

Learners don’t know how to formulate THEIR objectives

Page 17: Macedonia Icamp

Forming teamsWiki page for group formation

Alternatively the students bookmarked their blogs in scuttle with shared tag:

Page 18: Macedonia Icamp

Aggregating to monitor others

Course blog feed

Feeds from students’ blogs

Feed from slide presentation

Page 19: Macedonia Icamp

Facilitator’s blog

Feed from group wiki

Feeds from student blogs

Page 20: Macedonia Icamp

Collaborative writing

wikis

Collaborative assignments in social environments

collaborative annotation

shared blogs

shared images

spreadsheets

co-construction

Collaborative co-construction of knowledge presumes:

- the formation of shared collaborative workplaces

- grounding of plans, action and shared knowledge

Page 21: Macedonia Icamp

Shared weblog

No good places to prepare shared artifacts.

Page 22: Macedonia Icamp

Group wiki as a shared space

Problems with discussions!

Page 23: Macedonia Icamp

Group space in Ning.com

Page 24: Macedonia Icamp

Group space in Google groups

Page 25: Macedonia Icamp

Towards new model • Using traditional ID model reduces the

complexity level of learners‘ objectives and actions, presuming that facilitator can determine these instead of learners.

• Design elements of courses are sequential and leave little space for self-directing and developing the self-reflection competences.

• How does integrating the elements of self-direction into learning change the whole setting?

Page 26: Macedonia Icamp

Competing self-direction and collaboration

Individual space

Individual space

Collaborative space

Cooperative space

Individual space

Collaborative space

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Self-reflection must feed collaborative work and vice versa

Shared objective prevails

Individual objective prevails

Difficult to balance

Page 27: Macedonia Icamp

Towards new model• Difficulties in forming the shared spaces for actual

group-work • Student-centered learning landscape formation

takes time and a lot of grounding and testing the spaces - the shared space changes dynamically

• The need for the different type but entwined spaces both for shared regulation and for creating the joint product

• Teams may not use the learning environments effectively and need external feedback to get better impression how thet work

Page 28: Macedonia Icamp

Towards new model

• Learners have few possibilities of making judgements on tools and services of their learning landscapes.

• The activities of learning designs copy the facilitator‘s workingstyle and apply his/her personal preferences of learning landscapes on learners.

• Supports uneven distribution of competences between the educational specialists (designers, facilitators) and learners.

Page 29: Macedonia Icamp

Learner’s initial idea:•User as central owner of the personal landscape•Information flow between tools is not perceived•Tools are categorized by functionalities

In Web 2.0 learners need design-based thinking.

Page 30: Macedonia Icamp

Landscape view does not show activity sequences

We must see learning activities patterns in learning landscapes – How?

Page 31: Macedonia Icamp

The activity diagram does not show how landscape looks like.

Collaborative writing and learning from it

Self-reflection and analysis

Sharing files

Communication with peers

Interest- or community-based reading weblogs

Based on weblog information searching videos, images, books

Marking important information found from weblogs

Individualized aggregation of information

Both the landscape and activity diagram views are needed to describe learning!

Do we need some rules for learners how to draw?

Page 32: Macedonia Icamp

Towards new model • Instructional Design models focus mainly on

planning the teaching- and learning sequences and the activity patterns but less to the learning environment design as a whole Activity System.

Page 33: Macedonia Icamp
Page 34: Macedonia Icamp

Towards new model • Facilitator perceives different learning

affordances than students• Learners in groups percieve different

affordances

• How do learners perceive affordances? • Is there a certain common affordance space for

realizing certain objectives?

Page 35: Macedonia Icamp

An ecological view• Populations inhabit abstract spaces or niches.• Each niche is defined by several ecological

characteristics, which can be seen as fitness gradients.• There is interdependence of the organism and the niche

- one doesn’t exits without another.

• So in new ID models, let’s forget the TOOLS with fixed functions, INSTRUCTIONS that always make people do similar things – we need to define the learning spaces as a niches.

• Niche for certain learning populations can be described by affordances, niche can be repeated even if using different tools.

Page 36: Macedonia Icamp

We need to collect and reuse effective activity descriptions

We need to collect and reuse learning landscape ideas

We need to consider in course designs what the actual users would perceive

in new learning landscapes

We need define learning niches as abstract affordance spaces – then they are repeatable

Page 37: Macedonia Icamp

Toolsets today• If to play simple try Powerpoint or Gliffy.com and the

icon-set • For Mac: try Omnigraffle

– Landscape: mashup stencil from Scott Wilson

http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?entry=20061128164108

– Activity pattern stencil from Priit Tammets

http://www.graffletopia.com/stencils/360• Multi-perspective exploration tool:• http://kerg.tlu.ee/demos/multi-perspective-exploration

Page 38: Macedonia Icamp

Tasks for pairs• 1. Draw a diagram of:

a) your landscape b) one activity pattern you can do at this landscape (in Gliffy.com, Powerpoint or Omnigraffle) and share the link here or sent to [email protected]

• 2. Discuss and analyze your landscape – which affordances you perceive when doing this activity? Fill data into Excel table (raw.xls).

• Record affordances in shared spreadsheet: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=ps4XWyM81HM2xgkE5MkbfVw

Page 39: Macedonia Icamp
Page 40: Macedonia Icamp

Playing with paperclips

Page 41: Macedonia Icamp

If you need more ideas, see how the students struggled

http://www.slideshare.net/kpata/web-20-landscapesor look the stencil descriptionsfor activities and landscapes

Page 42: Macedonia Icamp

Action verb + artifact or/and subject noun + adjectives

A soft ontological way to describe affordances:

Page 43: Macedonia Icamp

How to find a niche• Grouping affordances into onto-dimensions• Soft-ontological categories can be clustered by simple semantic

categorization emerging from affordance descriptions

• Alternatively a pre-defined set of pedagogically sound categories may be used for grouping

Page 44: Macedonia Icamp

How to find a niche• Calculate each onto-dimension as a fitness landscape gradient in

respect of tool usage

• Niche as an abstractn-dimensional learningspace can be definedby many affordanceonto-dimensions

Page 45: Macedonia Icamp

Niche visualizations

Page 46: Macedonia Icamp

Niche visualizations

Enter affordandimensions.txt file to the Multiperspective exploration tool and test!

http://kerg.tlu.ee/demos/multi-perspective-exploration

http://www.htk.tlu.ee/icamp/icamponto/ionto_view

Page 47: Macedonia Icamp

Contact me: [email protected]

Or read my ideas: http://tihane.wordpress.com

Most of iCamp experimental data are still waiting an in-depth analysis, read about our progress in: http://www.icamp.eu