REVIVE – technological approach REVIVE – technological approach

Joanna WildCentre for Social Innovation-ZSI

REVIVE kick-off meeting

Open session in the international conference „Adult learning and e-Learning Quality“

25-26 November 2008, Kaunas, Lithuania

REVIVE – technological approachREVIVE – technological approach

Goal• transfer iCamp innovative

technological methodology for curriculum improvement from research and higher education to practical application in VET

Steps to achieve the goal• present iCamp technological

methodology to the partners• screen existing VET curriculum• adapt pedagogical and

technological methodologies to the project scope and SWOT analysis results – WP3

• train and consult – WP3 &WP4B

VET – problems & shortcomingsVET – problems & shortcomings• Curriculum follows the rules of Instructional Design Model

– Pre-defined learning situations, not enough autonomy for learners in terms of individual/group planning for learning

• Strong emphasis on subject-matter learning– Not enough space for Learning to Learn (def. of Learning

to Learn by the EC)• VLEs – primary tutor-defined and controlled centralised

systems– Not enough autonomy for learners in terms of tools, not

enough space for social networking for learning purposes

Only VET problems?Only VET problems?

The iCamp Context

heterogeneous tools

persons indistributed

locations

common model for competence acquisition

interoperability

The iCamp projectThe iCamp project

• Learning to Learn in parallel to learning content• Move from closed institutional landscapes of tools (LMSs) to

augmented landscapes (LMSs and SoSo)– Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)

• Move from Instructional Design to Learning Environment Design– Learning Environment: a network of people, artefacts, and

tools involved in learning activities– Learning Environment: an outcome of the learning process– Learning Environment Design: the learner adapts the

environment to her needs

Areas of challenge

The iCamp projectThe iCamp project

• Learning to Learn in parallel to learning content• Move from closed institutional landscapes of tools (LMSs) to

augmented landscapes (LMSs and SoSo)– Personal Learning Envrionments (PLEs)

• Move from Instructional Design to Learning Environment Design– Learning Environment: a network of people, artefacts, and

tools involved in learning activities– Learning Environment: an outcome of the learning process– Learning Environment Design: the learner adapts the

environment to her needs

Augmented Landscapesindividuals

use subsets oftools and services

providedby institution

actors can choosefrom a growing

variety of options

gradually transcendinstitutional landscape

actors appear asemigrants or

immigrants

leave and joininstitutional landscape

for particular purposes

The iCamp projectThe iCamp project

• Learning to Learn in parallel to learning content• Move from closed institutional landscapes of tools (LMSs) to

augmented landscapes (LMSs and SoSo)– Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)

• Move from Instructional Design to Learning Environment Design– Learning Environment: a network of people, artefacts, and

tools involved in learning activities– Learning Environment: an outcome of the learning process– PLE: the learner creates, maintains adapts the

environment to her needs

Performance supportPerformance support

• Conceptual and technological toolbox for practitioners– Activity patterns– Portfolio of open source tools and services which

are interoperable– Repository network

CasesCases

Planning / trial 3Planning / trial 3

Planning/ trial 3Planning/ trial 3

• Initial choice of types of tools

• Facilitators and students should be informed about the strengths and limits of individual tools to make informed choices

• Both facilitators and students need support and training in using tools (digital natives are not learning natives)

iCamp Help CentreiCamp Help Centre

iCamp Help Centre

Planning/ trial 3Planning/ trial 3

• Initial choice of types of tools

• Facilitators and students should be informed about the strengths and limits of individual tools to make informed choices

• Both facilitators and students need support and training in using tools (digital natives are not learning natives)

iCamp Help CentreiCamp Help Centre

iCamp Handbook

iCamp HandbookMupple Mupple

Implementing/trial 3 Implementing/trial 3

Implementing – trial 3Implementing – trial 3

• European Master Interactive Media programme (EMIM)• LMS – Moodle

• course structure and objectives • activities• initial readings

• assessment in private mode

EMIM - Moodle

Implementing – examples from iCamp trials

Implementing – examples from iCamp trials

• Blog • Scuttle (social bookmarking)

Implementing – examples from iCamp trials

Implementing – examples from iCamp trials

• Video Wiki • Personal Blog

• bookmarking the blog in scuttle using tag EMIM03

Getting to know each otherGetting to know each other

FlashmeetingFlashmeeting

VideowikiVideowiki

Personal blogPersonal blog

EMIM in scuttle

Implementing – trial 3Implementing – trial 3

• finding group members • creating distributed learning environment to support the group work

• group blog• wiki• google docs• scuttle • Moodle forum, chat • skype/flashmeeting• doodle

• feed an tag – technologies for social networking

• Feed on feeds• Feedback

negotiationnegotiation

Implementing – trial 3Implementing – trial 3

• sharing work and responsibilities within the group• preparing and updating personal learning contract

• Tools used for learning contracts:• iLogue• Blogs

iLogue – learning contract

Implementing – trial 3Implementing – trial 3

• Individual activities embedded in group activities• PLEs mixed and enriched with new components

Object Spot – federated search for learning resources

Scuttle – tagging and sharing interesting resources

Blog – reflection on readings

Wiki – work on a joint artefact

Wiki – discussion space

Blog – reflection on learning

iLogue – learning contract

Implementing – trial 3Implementing – trial 3

• active support in the first weeks• active support for self-reflection

Facilitator’s blog

Implementing – trial 3Implementing – trial 3

• 50% for individual reading activities reflected in weblog and PLC• 25% based on facilitator’s assessment of the group product• 25% based on peer-assessment of the group product

• peer-review of learning contracts and weekly reflections on learning progress

Case studies – some findingsCase studies – some findings

• 1st case: – The usage of PLEs should be supported by some official

course assignments• e.g. self-reflection tasks, self-directing tasks

• 2nd case: – Self-reflection and self-directing tasks should be an

integrated part of a collaborative activity • e.g reflections on common readings, Personal Learning

Contract negotiated by group members

– Self-reflection must be actively facilitated• e.g. templates, comments

•

Case studies – some findingsCase studies – some findings

• 3rd case:– There is a need for tools and services which

enable to interact from PLE environment in the group environment• FEEDBACK• MUPPLE

FeedBack enabled PLE NetworksFeedBack enabled PLE Networks

Feedback enabled Wordpress

MUPPLEMUPPLE

• Set of Web-Based Tools for learning,browser-based aggregation= ‘web-application mashup’

• Recommend tools for specific activities

– through design templates

– through data mining

• Scrutable: give learner full control over learning process

• Track learner interaction & usage of tools and refine recommendations

Mash-UP

Personal

Learning

Environments

iCamp HandbookiCamp Handbook

• Performance support for facilitators• A portfolio of tools which support different types of

activities:– Communication– Publishing and sharing– Collaboration– Planning self evaluation– Creating social network– Searching the net

• Usage scenarios supported with tutorials

Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!

Joanna WildCentre for Social Innovationwild@zsi.at

iCamp Projectwww.icamp.eu