Archive for the ‘general’ Category

h1

iCamp meeting in Istanbul

February 12, 2008

This week we have the iCamp project meeting in Istanbul to plan the next trial of the project and meet with external facilitators.

This time we will test the integrated landscape, which consists of Moodle and other social software tools. The trial will be the EMIM e-learning course in an international settings.

Start: March 2 2008

Through a series of practical hands-on activities and reflective discussions in international groups, participants will gain insight to e-learning concepts, issues, technologies, standards, methods and policies that are introduced with real-life examples and with the support of an advanced distributed e-learning environment. Special attention will be given to interoperability issues in learning technology domain, knowledge management and social-constructivist methods of computer-supported collaborative learning and networking in challenging environment. Students will apply self-directed learning principles using conversational learning contracts.

h1

Workshop: how to use videos in e-learning

January 22, 2008

We are planning a workshop on collaborative video-usage in e-learning 4.-5.02.2008 in Tallinn.
The idea is to test in teams some software tools of video-making and mobile cell-phone cameras.

The scenarios for testing are related to collaborative project-work situations:
Each group decides their topics within their overall group theme

GROUP 1: Group-making and introducing the members, scenarios in face-to-face and online conditions using the video tools.

GROUP 2: Collaborative compilation of project materials, scenarios in face-to-face and online conditions using the video tools.

Group 3: Presentation and evaluation of projects, scenarios in face-to-face and online conditions using the video tools.

We plan around 20 face-to-face participants and in order to test how can collaborative videos be used in distant situations, the workshop is organized so that the remote participants can be part of the groups via Skype connection.

Certainly, this is more like a design session and many things may eventually not work, but the participation is free.

In Estonian you can read and see some more from Priit’s weblog.

h1

It went well with grants!

January 18, 2008

We finally heard about our special funding from the government - it was accepted!

So, 2008-2013 we are going to realize the grant “Distributed learning environments, their interoperability, and models of application”. We will investigate activity patterns in distributed systems, develop the learning environment design model for distributed systems and launch the prototype that consists of inter-operable sets of social software.

Another great news is that also our smaller grant “Supporting self-directed learning in augmented reality learning environment” was successful for 2008-2011.

I think it is a sign that our team in Tallinn University Center of Educational Technology is really good, since the competition was really high and many good teams got less money or were rejected.

h1

saying farewell to ICT based science education

December 24, 2007

The end of the year 2007 is the time of saying farewell to my 7 years of working in ICT based science education at the University of Tartu.
I am on the move already more than a year, my new job in Tallinn University is more about general social- and hybrid spaces, and i love it too. But looking back and saying farewell is sad. Maybe this is the reason i have been quiet in my weblog.

Summary of ideas i was working with:

1. Learning with web-based models in chat
We developed methods of conducting visualized individual and collaborative model-based learning in physics, chemistry and biology (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003b; Puusepp, Pata & Sarapuu, 2003a; Pata & Sarapuu, 2004b; Pata, Puusepp & Sarapuu, 2004). Problems were introduced at web-pages. Activity in chatroom started from hypothetico-predictive reasoning of the problem solution without conceptual support, and continued with model-based reasoning with expressive (constructing models) or inquiry models (performing inquiry with ready-made models). Metacognitive and cognitive support of the tutor was provided in chatroom.
The spontaneous process of developing shared mental models was analysed. It was found that the students start constructing their mental models from structural relationships within the object-category, giving them names and describing their properties, and ends with the mapping of processes. At individual level the conceptual change was found to be related with the increased process category, and changes within the object category elements. The change towards using more scientific categories besides everyday explanations was recorded as well (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003).
We developed the theoretical framework of structural and conceptual development of problem representations in science (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003; Puusepp, Pata & Sarapuu, 2003; Adojaan & Sarapuu, 2003; Pata & Sarapuu, 2004; Pata, Puusepp ja Sarapuu, 2004). This theory assumes that students ability to explain natural phenomena can be characterised as the directed development towards completeness of mental representations. In this process the structural elements (objects and processes and their properties), as well as, their causal relationships (between objects, between objects and processes, and between processes), but also the conceptual levels of these elements (macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic; concrete and abstract) are developed and hierarchically mapped in mental models and their external representations.

2. Model-based reasoning
Since the development of problem representations is tightly connected with the reasoning processes, it was presumed that different types of model-based reasoning processes would have divergent influence on the development of students‘ mental representations of the problems. It was supposed that inductive expressive model-based reasoning (constructing the model) and deductive exploratory model-based reasoning (working with inquiry model) would enhance different cognitive construction processes and mental model development.
Our results indicated that students were applying different cognitive reasoning processes when working with expressive or exploratory models.
When working with the expressive model (composing the model) students completed their individual mental models gradually with new elements, their mental models were developed as whole in the problem context. This model-based reasoning resulted that students were able of reconstructing the mental models of the problem also individually after collaborative modelling. When working with the exploratory model, students tested the validity of their initial hypothesis. For this the initial mental model was tested partially and sequentially with the exploratory model, replacing parts of it. However, difficulties were observed in relating the problem context and the model context. The usage of abstract quantitative reasoning during the collaborative model-based inquiry indicated that students were developing a scientifically correct mental model of the phenomenon. However, after the modelling activity they were not able to repeat individually mental models of the specific problem at similar abstract level.

3. Scaffolding collaborative problem-solving in chat
Learning in joint inquiry situations by using shared visualisation and synchronous talk in textual mode rises the importance of scaffolding the shared activities. In collaborative modelling students need to understand the meaning of their peers‘ representations and their planning processes.
Several studies were conducted in collaboration with the Universities of Turku and Western Sidney, focusing on the interrelated scaffolding roles of the tutor and students in chatroom environment. A role-play was conducted with basic school students, which was supported with web-based representations and tutors‘ and students‘ verbal scaffolding. The results indicated that the actions directed to solve the problem are not determined by specific tutors‘ action types but the intensity of tutor’s and students interactions (Pata, Lehtinen & Sarapuu, 2005).
Tutors‘ support was effective if directed towards supporting students to scaffold each other in the inquiry, and less effective if directly supporting students‘ knowledge construction (Pata, Sarapuu & Archee, 2005). The results of these studies were used to develop the framework for scaffolding collaborative knowledge-construction in chatrooms (Pata, Sarapuu & Lehtinen, 2006).
We also studied collaborative visualisation on electronic whiteboard of chatrooms.The participats‘ spontaneous metacommunication, and its influence on the construction of shared representations in groups was studied. It was found that when working simultaneously in verbal and visual environment, students must be guided to reflect their meanings about visuals in verbal format. The most effective was the groupwork where students shifted roles of modelling on electronic whiteboard and explaining verbally the mental models. The results of the experiment were used to develop the model for effective metacognitive scaffolding in collaborative visualised learning process (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003).

4. Inquiry learning in multi-representational environment
In series of experiments the interrelations of students‘ cognitive and metacognitive development were investigated when learning in multi-representational environment.
We studied how students developed awareness of cognitive and metacognitive tools in such environment. It was found that during the 1st problem task students did not obtain the task-related awareness of the learning objects, and it developed dynamically only after solving several problems. The level of students‘ awareness of learning objects influenced the effectiveness of solving inquiry tasks, especially the phase of transferring knowledge between the authentic problem situations and theoretical situations (Pata, Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2007).

semiosphere

In another study it was found that students lacked of conceptual consistency during solving the sequential steps of the inquiry in multi-representational environment, this result was supporting the theory of contextual reconstruction of knowledge from pierces rather than that of the activation of the whole conceptual frameworks. It was found that the students with alternative scientific understanding showed less progress in the inquiry learning environment, indicating that individual inquiry with the model was not an effective tool for eliminating students‘ misunderstandings (Pata, submitted).
In the next study it was found that the students‘ level of initial conceptual coherence influenced their effectiveness of performing certain steps of the inquiry in the multi-representational environment. Conceptual coherence was conceptualised as the students‘ ability to translate simultaneously information from one form of representation to another, and from one context to another. The multi-representational learning environment was found to be effective in advancing students‘ level of conceptual coherence (Pata, Pedaste, & Sepp, 2007; Sepp, Pata, Pedaste, 2007).These studies have lead to the ideas related to ecological approach to learning environments .

h1

iCamp Trial 2 initial scheme

July 16, 2007

Barbara Kieslinger asked me to make the scheme of Trial 2 of iCamp Project. Here is something preliminary to discuss. The lines connecting tools and activities actually mean the free choice (coupling) among those tools on the basis of affordances perceived in the activities at team level and anticipated tool affordances.

trial 2 image

LEARNERS MAKE WEBLOGS AND VIDEO OR PHOTOLOGS TO GET INTRODUCED.
Getting introduced patterns

FACILITATOR INTRODUCES PROJECTS, MAYBE IN WEBLOG. FACILITATOR INTRODUCES HOW WORK IS ORGANISED.

LEARNERS SELECT TEAM ACCORDING TO THE PROJECT.

AFTER ASSEMBLING TEAM ENVIRONMENT AND DISTRIBUTING TASKS THEY DO PERSONAL CONTRACTS.

trial2

Some ideas:
http://tihane.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/work-distribution-patterns/
Community-directed application of contracts
What are conversational contracts

PEER-EVALUATION PAIRS MUST BE CREATED TO MONITOR PERSONAL CONTRACTS AT CERTAIN TIMES. ONLY TEAM-MEMBERS CAN DO IT FROM INSIDE BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FROM THE PROJECT ASPECT AND WHAT TASKS THEY DIVIDED TO PEOPLE.

TEAMS CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT IN SHARED AREA, THEY CAN ALSO AGGREGATE PROJECT FROM PERSONAL ARTIFACTS, BUT BETTER TO MAKE SHARED ARTIFACT OR CONSTRUCT SOMEWHERE.

CERTAIN TIME-SLOTS MUST BE DECIDED TO ANALYSE TEAM-MEMBERS BY PERSONAL CONTRACTS FROM THE PROJECT ASPECT. TEAM CAN DECIDE TO CHANGE PERSONAL CONTRACTS AT SOME EXTENT IF PROJECT DEVELOPS DIFFERENTLY. BUT THIS CAN HAPPEN ONLY AT CERTAIN ANALYSIS/REFLECTION MOMENTS.

FACILITATOR SUPPORTS TEAMS AT TEAM/PROJECT LEVEL USING WEBLOG AND MONITORS THE TEAMS IN THEIR AGGREGATORS. FACILITATOR DOES NOT DO PERSONAL-CONTRACT LEVEL SUPPORT BECAUSE HE/SHE IS OUTSIDER.

TEAM-MEMBERS EVALUATE EACH OTHER IN THE END OF THE PROJECT USING CONTRACTS, THEY MAY NEED TO PRESENT IT TO THE FACILITATOR SO THAT IT WAS CONTEXTUALISED.
FACILITATOR CAN EVALUATE THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ONLY IN THE END.

FACILITATOR EVALUATES THE PROJECT. WILL WE LET THE TEAM ALSO TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT?

h1

Design-based research workshop

June 26, 2007

I was visiting the design-based research workshop at Ed-Media 2007 yesterday morning. I took couple of notes at the workshop.

Here are workshop resources online.

Some more resources to the researchers of design-based research.

Design-based research workshop
Tom Reeves, Ron Oliver, Jan Herrington

Tom Reeves:

Identification of problems with participants, development of prototype solutions

DBR is rigourous, relevant and collaborative
Interventionist
Process focused
Multilevel
Utility-orianted
Theory-driven

Products are: affective change (impact on situation) and warranted design principles (Reeves)

Action research, however, is different from DBR, in DBR the design principles must be one of the outcomes.

Educational design research
book 2006
van der Akken, Nieveen, McKenny

Chris Dede
River city curriculum

Yasmin Kafai UCLA

Charles W. Desforges

Jan Herrington:

DBR is..
development research
design experiments
design reserach
Formative research

Models

Bannan-Ritland, 2003
Reeves, 2006

1. Analysis of practical problems by researchers and practioners in collaboration

Start with significant educational problem
talking with practitioners
articulating the problem
have a look at literature

2. A solution: try to come up with it

development of solutions with a theoretical framework

Interrogating the literature:
what aspects of the learning environment are you looking at
what paper says
quote
possible principle
reference

come up with draft principles to inform your research
draft principles compiled
we review technological innovations
design and develop a solution
Appropriate theoretical solution

3. Cycled of testing

how and why solution works and not proof that it works
the theoretical aspect may change in these iterative cycles

4. Design principles
testing iteratively

scientific output - design principles (draft principles, tested principles)
practical output - designed artifacts
societal outputs - professional development of participants

DBR design and evaluation functions
possible to match DBR against evaluation functions
Reeves and Hedberg’s (2003) functions of evaluation
review of concept
needs analysis
formative evaluation
summative evaluation
effectiveness of evaluation
impact evaluation
maintenance evaluation

Some aspects of the DBR approach were disappointing - iterativity was demonstrated only inside the DBR cycles and not between the theoretical aims and design-solution aims, which also occurs.
Why I liked this workshop is because it became clear to me that this methodology is not still established enough.

h1

before summer

June 22, 2007

Here the midsummer day is arriving, and most of the action ends at work and university.
I have been ending some project papers about evaluating activity patterns in different LMS and distributed learning systems, preparing the changes in the new project about cross-subject teaching methods of ICT, discussing with my students before the summer starts to keep them on track, and preparing my two presentations for Ed-Media 2007 conference in Vancouver.

Symposium paper and learning environment paper.

h1

research fellowship Academics of non-EU countries in South Eastern countries

June 21, 2007

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Fellowship


: : :> Project Description < : : :

go to : : :> Call for proposals

go to : : :> application form

Application deadline:
3 August, 2007

Solicited projects aim at the improvement of student learning and
creation of knowledge on teaching and learning in the disciplines and
particular institutional contexts. The projects can be based on
research of one existing course developed by the academic, or a
cross-analysis of several courses.

Eligible participants
Academics of non-EU countries in our target region (South Eastern
Europe, Former Soviet Union and Mongolia) with full time employment in
higher education and with the ability to develop and deliver their own
courses are eligible to apply.

h1

master defences

June 8, 2007

I have spent half a day at master defences of our unit in Tartu University.
There were two studies about educational technology in teaching. Mario was investigating how students’ inquiry skills would develop as a result of studying in inquiry-based learning environment “Young Scientist”. His pre-and post-test indicated that the skills of formulating research question, hypothesis and doing analysis developed significantly. However, more notable for me was that during the learning process the students did not show very high level of inquiry skills in Young Scientist. This was in accordance with some of the results Evald Sepp, my master student has found in his study. I think the randomness of answering is actually more common than we think in these environments. Evald has investigated what do the students focus at, and the preliminary results confirmed the randomness.

In another dissertation, Kadi was investigating which kind of visual information works the best - models with arrows, models with bar diagrams, images with arrows and images with bar diagrams - to understand better biological processes. Her results indicated that the models and images with arrows were more effective, compared with bar diagrams. Secondly, she looked, which of these types of information would enhance solving problems in everyday context in post-test, and again the models with arrows were the most effective. Thirdly, which was i think the most interesting result, she studied translation phenomena between bar-diagram and arrow diagram. It was found that students, who worked with arrow model were later able to translate from arrow images to bar-diagrams and vice-versa, while the students who worked with bar-diagrams had problems in translating similar way. This seems to indicate towards some hierarchy. She explained these results with the dimensionality of images - the bar diagram has less dimensions than the arrow image, which shows also the direction of the processes. In her explanation - working with the images with more dimensionalities would prepare students better to cope with images with less dimensionalities. This leaves of couse open, should we always start teaching from complex information, and can all the learners cope with it. She mentioned that some students who were initially at lower level were more effective with still arrow images than with arrow models. However, one could argue, that arrow-models (which also demonstrated mitochondrian image) were more reality-bound than bar-diagrams which were abstract. In this case the arrow model seems less complicated than the bar model and the explanations might be different.

My own students did not defend this time, and i must still find some time in july to sit with them if they want to defend in august.

h1

testing icamp folio

May 21, 2007

Last saturday we made a small testing with the current icamp folio version where we tried to use the affordance-lists.

We let our students of the affordance-based web 2.0 learning technologies course to evaluate their perceived affordances in relation of the collaborative learning activities which they previously tested in groups. The idea was that the learners of the same group could thisway see are their affordance-sets for the same activity close to each other or not.

The system seemed to be clear for them, but in the phase of comparing each other at UserView they suddenly found out that the plotted users were situated differently at each screen. And it was not easy to explain them what they see on the plot.

So, one thing what we need to do with the plot is to stabilise somehow the view, so that it had a meaning on the screen. For example this kind of userview would help me to find the learning-partners who perceive that they need similar affordances to conduct their activities.

Actually, we argued with Mart would it be better in user view to use instead of affordance-conception the activity-terminology, and in the toolview the affordance terminology. For me, affordances are always emergent in between activities and tools, so they are not part as activities or tools. As they are emergent and in between, the affordances can be described using the language that is taken from the activities. Thus this separation of naming seems quite artificial, but we can do it if it seems necessary for some reasons to label the same things differently.

Second aspect, which we discussed today with Mart and Terje was that for ToolsView we need a different approach. Each user needs a possibility to evaluate the tools according to the affordances:
- separate tool evaluation
- the set of tools evaluation.
Current tool view is exactly the same as userview that is conceptually not correct.
Why this function is useful - thisway we can talk of socially-defined decision-making about tools and toolsets in distributed learning landscapes.

We also argued would the sum of separate tools’ affordances make up the sum of affordances for the set of integrated tools. It seems the answer is no - for example if to evaluate the affordances of an aggregator, weblog and wiki separately, we would miss that aggregators and weblogs could be easily integrated, but there would be difficulties of getting the feeds from wikis to do the same kind of monitoring.

I hope all these ideas will make it possible now to develop a better prototype of Folio.