SIG GROUP Bulletin
Special Issue on
Community-Based
Learning:
Explorations
into Theoretical Groundings,
Empirical Findings and Computer Support
Guest Editors:
Ralf Klamma,
Markus Rohde, IIS=
I,
Gerry Stahl,
Copy Editor:
David Tietjen,
Papers based on a workshop at the
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2= 004)
&nbs= p;
Community-B= ased Learning:
Exploration= s into Theoretical Groundings,
Empirical F= indings and Computer Support
Contents
Introduction
to the Special Issue
Part
I. Theoretical Groundings
Us,
Ourselves, and We: Thoughts about Social (Self-) Categorization
Re-presenting
Collective Learning: A Generative Way Forward.
Can
we use a Complex Systems Framework to Model Community-Based Learning?
Pedagogical
Praxis: Using Technology to Build Professional Communities of Practice
Co-Reflection
in Online Learning Environments
Supporting
Communities of Practice in Applied Computer Science Studies
Come_IN:
Using Computers to Foster the Integration of Migrant Communities
Student
Communities in a Distance-Learning Environment
The
Hook-ups Initiative: How Youth can Learn by Creating their own Computer
Interfaces and Programs
Supporting
and Changing Practices of Nested and Overlapping Educational Communities
Community-B= ased Learning:
Exploration= s into Theoretical Groundings,
Empirical F= indings and Computer Support
Authors
R. Klamma, M.= Rohde, G. Stahl. Introduction to the special issue
G. Stahl. Mediation of group cognition
M. Rohde, D. W. Shaffer. Us, ourselves and we: Thoughts about social (self= -) categorization
L. Forsyth, L. Schaverien. Re-presenting collective learning: A generative= way forward
E. S. Charles. Can we use a complex systems framework to model community-b= ased learning?
D. W. Shaffer. Pedagogical praxis: Using technology to build professional communities of practice
J. Yukawa. Co-reflection in online learning environments
J. Strobel. Communities of reflection-practice and clash of communities: Thoughts on the (re-) design of classes in humanities
R. Klamma, M. Spaniol. Supporting communication and knowledge creation in digitally networked communities in the humanities
R. Klamma, M.Rohde, V. Wulf. Supporting communities of practice in applied computer science studies
G. Stevens, M. Veith, V. Wulf. Come_IN: Using computers to foster the integration of migrant communities
T. Isckia, C. Delalonde. Student communities in a distance learning environment
W.
A. Millner. The hook-ups initiative: How youth can learn by creating their= own computer interfaces and programs
D. Suthers, V. Harada, J. Yukawa, V. Lid. Supporting and changing practice= s of nested and overlapping educational communities
Introduction to the Special Is= sue
Ralf Klamma
klam= ma@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Markus Rohde
International Institute for Socio-Informatics,
Gerry Stahl
Community-Based Learning
This very special (and final) issue of the ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin presents pro= ducts of a workshop on Community-Based Learning: Explorations into Theoretical Groundings, Empirical Findings and Computer Support that was held at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2004).
The workshop generated considerable enthusiasm and a p= alpable sense that the participants were heading in a strikingly (and surprisingly) similar direction that was important to the future of the larger research community. Individuals came to the workshop with brief position papers that= had been shared on a pre-workshop website. In the day-long discourse, themes surfaced, became explicit and developed; they created a sense of shared knowledge building that was directly relevant to the individual contributio= ns that people had brought with them. Perhaps the most productive time of the workshop was a period when smaller workgroups were formed to brainstorm specific aspects of the day’s theme. During subsequent days of the conference, as part of the preparation of this publication and through circumstances of life in the research community, workshop participants interacted further with each other in many combinations. The papers being published now are knowledge artifacts that reflect and encapsulate what the workshop community learned, as re-formulated from within the scientific perspectives of individual authors.
Contributions to the workshop aimed to better understa= nd learning within diverse educational communities and to explore their potent= ial support by means of community-based technologies. Workshop discussions focu= sed on intersections and relationships between educational research and computer science as applied within the learning sciences. Although the papers below = are grouped into sections on theoretical groundings, empirical findings and com= puter supports, almost all of the contributions actually span the three focal are= as. The theory reflects practical experiences, at various levels of abstraction. The empirical inquiries involve computer-supported learning and explore rel= ated theoretical issues. The computer support investigates technologies that are motivated by theoretical stances or questions, and they try these technolog= ies out in practical settings.
The premise of the workshop was that the learning scie= nces need to better understand theoretical, empirical and technical aspects of community-based learning, in their interactions in concrete settings. New computer systems need to take into account the complex needs of educational communities, which typically change dynamically, are emergent, evolve over = long periods of time, and allow multiple interacting memberships. While socio-cultural and related theories recognize these features on a theoretic= al level [1; 2; 9; 16; 17], empirical research results focus on diverse learni= ng communities and aim to draw design implications for technological support [= 3; 4; 11; 13].
The design of tools for supporting learning in schools= and universities has too often neglected the notion of community. Most educatio= nal technology still focuses on supporting the individual learner or the traditional role of the classroom teacher [10; 12; 14; 15]. Individual clas= ses are seen as the focus of activity, where the class is seen as a set of individuals rather than as a community structure having relations with other classes and situated within the cultural communities where the students are rooted. Some recent computer systems have shifted their focus from supporti= ng individual learners or teachers to supporting group work [5-8]. This does n= ot solve all the problems when it comes to supporting the creation of a learni= ng community, where learners contribute and build on other people’s experience, combining different perspectives across classes, direction of s= tudy and diverse cultures. Most existing systems fail to acknowledge that knowle= dge is not just an asset of the individual, but rather of the group and the community as a whole.
The notion of community-based learning is particularly
indebted to the concept of “community-of-practice” (CoP).
Popularized in Lave and Wenger’s Situated
Learning [9] and their other publications, this concept was forged in s=
mall
workgroups within a vibrant research community in the late 1980’s that
included the
It is perhaps fitting that these workshop papers—= ;which respectfully critique the concept of CoP and point to the role of groups wi= thin the CoP—be published as a final act of ACM’s special interest g= roup for software support for groups. Taken together, the contributions to this issue suggest the importance of a theoretical, empirical and design focus on the group—on small groups within communities. They thus propose a ren= ewed concern with the group within the research communities of CSCW and CSCL, wh= ich will carry forward the SIGGROUP mission.
Theoretical Grounding
Although the title of the workshop and of this issue r= efers to the concept of community-based learning, it may be preferable to use the broader term “computer-supported collaborative learning” (CSCL) because the presented concepts, approaches and studies reflect learning processes that are characterized by the following three dimensions:
- Gerry Stahl’=
;s
paper as the site where knowledge building can most likely take place in
communities. Looking at the spectrum between individualistic and social
concepts of learning in communities, he argues for an analytical perspective
focused on the intermediate level of small work groups within larger
communities. Stahl reflects on individual and social psychological concepts=
of
individual and group cognition, and the mediation of cognitive processes by=
the
social context in which the individual or the group might be situated. He a=
lso
examines the mediation of individual and group cognition by technological
media. With regard to his own experiences and to others’ research on
knowledge building in collaborative working and learning settings, Stahl dr=
aws
the conclusion that “small groups are the engines of knowledge buildi=
ng,”
creating the basis for both individual internalization and collective
externalization of knowledge in cultural artifacts and procedures of social
communities. The idea of looking at communities as structured by productive
small groups reappears in many of the other contributions.
A small group at the workshop took up the terminologic= al issues raised by talking about small groups within communities. Markus Rohde and David W. Shaffer volunteered to write up the brainstorming that took place in this workshop group and to develop the ideas further. In their report, they analyze a var= iety of terms and concepts to describe collections of people involved in group-learning activities. They discuss meanings and connotations of terms = like “group,” (“small group,” “working group,̶= 1; etc.), “collective,” “network” and “community.” Furthermore, they reflect on different modes, components and mechanisms of interaction and social perception (e.g., collaboration, culture, identity, history) that are crucial for most studie= s on community learning. Rohde and Shaffer present a first step to a framework—from group to community—and conclude that there shoul= d be different requirements for tools aiming to support collaborative learning a= nd for research methodologies with regard to different kinds of collectives.
Lachlan Forsy= th and Lynette Schaverien present a model of collective learning for online learning (and teaching) communities. Based on their findings in educational research, the authors introduce a generative theory of learning and discuss implications of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology for the analysis of collective learning. The generative theory approach understands learning as= the cyclic generation and testing of ideas in order to better the chances of su= rvival of an organism, individual or group/culture. The generative model of collec= tive learning analyzes six different acts of learning as collective or emergent phenomena. Forsyth and Schaverien name as topics for future research the adoption of models for the description of processes of enculturation and collective intentionality and the description of appropriate technologically rich environments for support of collective learning.
Liz Charles <= /b>presents a description of an active classroom enacting a learning-by-design curricul= um involving workgroups learning science through design projects. She asks how= one can analyze the cognitive and social interactions that take place within or between the levels of individual, small group and larger classroom communit= y. In particular, she explores the applicability of dynamic systems theories t= hat have been so successful in the physical and biological sciences. She propos= es combining a particular flavor of complex dynamic systems theory with a focu= s on timescales and history in order to capture flows of activity. Charles appli= es this framework to the classroom description that she started with and comes= up with two views of the classroom scenario. Not only is she able to capture t= he relationships of individuals and artifacts to the small group that defines their activity structure, but she also represents change in time.
A contribution from David W. Shaffer focuses on the concept of “pedagogical praxis” a= s a fundamentally different approach to describe and investigate communities of practice in educational settings. Based on the understanding that different professional practices can be characterized by distinct and coherent “epistemic frames,” Shaffer posits that for the design of learn= ing environments, a pedagogical praxis of professional trainers that take a learning practices perspective might be of greater importance than the real-world activities of professional experts. Thus, it is not what experts= do in their everyday practice that should be the basis for practice-oriented teaching, but what learners do to become experts that should be the focus. = This means that pedagogical praxis as a means to create comprehensive learning environments is not a striving for “real” practice situations, = but for “thickly authentic” ones.
Empirical Findings
The papers in this volume present a wide range of case studies of computer-supported community-based learning, referring to primary school pupils and students in university settings; to students in school and out of school in after school programs, community centers or professional internships; to student teachers and other professionals; to people learning and instructing online, face-to-face or in blended hybrid arrangements. Therefore, the studies offer a spectrum of applications of collective learn= ing environments, reaching from traditional educational institutions to community-based or technology-based experimental facilities. Moreover, the studies presented include global experiences from different countries and regions: American, Australian and European.
Joyce Yukawa<= /b> reports on her experiences with co-reflection in dyadic interaction during = an online course in action research. She analyzes and compares her chat-based communication with two students according to processes of collaborative reflection between teacher and student. Yukawa looks upon this co-reflectio= n as a core activity of group cognition. Despite the fact that group cognition is more difficult to analyze in dyadic interaction than in group interaction, = she concludes that in her online communication with students the co-constructio= n of knowledge occurred, and she reflects about her role as teacher, facilitator, coach, mentor and even co-learner.
The community of practice of philosophers of science (= PoS) is the starting point of Johannes = Strobel’s deliberations in “Communities of Reflection-Practice.” Aside fr= om disciplines such as engineering, biology and physics, most humanities scien= ces do not have an established, well-defined professional practice outside the university. Therefore, scholars, teachers and students of PoS face methodological difficulties building communities of practice with experts outside their educational setting, collaborating on real-world tasks, and learning from these experiences. With regard to this lack of a well-structu= red real-world practice, Strobel calls these communities of (mostly humanities) scientists “communities of reflection-practice.” He discusses h= ow modern socio-cultural and constructivist learning theories and approaches c= ould be made fruitful educational environments for these research areas. Another question addressed by the author is the multi-disciplinary nature of PoS and similar sciences: Strobel reflects on possible clashes of different disciplines’ communities of practice running up against each other in multi-discipline research areas.
Like Strobel in his contribution, Ralf Klamma and Marc Spaniol are investigating communities of practice within the humanities. Their case study presents the
Ralf Klamma, = Markus Rohde and Volker Wulf discuss experiences with a longitudinal study of = the course “High-tech Entrepreneurship and New Media.” The course design is based on socio-cultural theories of learning, and considers the r= ole of social capital in entrepreneurial networks. By integrating student teams into the communities of practice of local start-ups, the course offers lear= ning opportunities to students, companies and academia. The student teams are connected to each other and to their supervisors in academia, and practice through a community system. Moreover, the course is accompanied by a series= of lectures and group discussions that include extra-academic experts and peop= le with start-up company experience.
Gunnar Steven= s, Michael Veith and Volker Wulf discuss a project aimed at fostering integrative community processes by deploying computer facilities to German = and immigrant primary school children and their parents. Influenced by the MIT-approach of Computer Clubhouses, the authors introduced a computer lab,= an interactive course design and a primarily volunteer-based facilitator/coach= ing concept to German students and Turkish immigrant pupils in
Computer Support
The papers in this section explicitly take up issues of technology by experimenting in specific situated contexts of community learning.
Thierry Iscki= a and Charles Delalonde present a case study of an online course for MIS stud= ies. The authors evaluate course design and technological support with observati= ons and interviews of students participating in an online course using Microsoft Excel. Their findings show evidence of an inefficient use of discussion for= ums and the absence of an effective (online) learning community. Isckia and Delalonde end up with several recommendations for improved course design and some rules for more efficient online interaction.
In his case study of a blended learning university cou= rse in a “small scale, multiple satellite campuses model” Woei Hung investigates the impact= of social presence, intimacy and immediacy on learning processes and outcomes.=
As described by Amon Millner, the Hook-ups initiative gets children and youth in community technology centers (such as local computer clubhouses) engaged in the development of so-called “Hook-ups.” Hook-ups are physical obje= cts (like joysticks, toys, every-day artifacts, tools such as scissors, etc.) t= hat work as human-computer interfaces by controlling games, animations and other computer programs. Based on the constructionist theory of learning and on t= he approach of “learning through design,” ten 18-year-old youths w= ere motivated to play with computers (digital devices) and everyday objects with which they are familiar (physical devices), and create Hook-ups by using sensors, wires and a specific kind of a Hook-up interface board to connect = them to each other and develop computer programs (by “simple scratch” programming) that can be influenced by manipulation of the physical objects. Millner presents some illustrative examples that give evidence for the succ= ess of these Hook-ups projects.
Daniel Suther= s, Violet Harada, Joyce Yukawa and Viil Lid report on the Hawai’i Networked Learning Communities (HNLC) project, which aims to support teache= rs in enabling students in disadvantaged rural schools to attain high standard= s in science, math and technology. A first evaluation of a so-called “virt= ual community center” shows that the focused target group of teachers did= not use the system frequently. Probably caused by different expectations of developers and potential users, this insufficient use of the system leads t= he authors to several questions concerning a redesign and/or re-launch of the virtual community center. Suthers et al. conclude that they should focus no= t on one community of teachers but on “nested and overlapping educational communities,” including different disciplines, different schools and = even broader communities of stakeholders like parents, employers and administrat= ive representatives. Furthermore, the different kinds of practices that should = be supported and the nature of the educational system (e.g., technical, socio-organizational, etc.) to be built are discussed.
NOTE
The articles in this issue were revisions and extensio= ns of position papers submitted for a workshop at the 2004 International Conferen= ce of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). The ICLS and CSCL conference series are now sponsored by the International Society of the Learning Sciences (see ISLS.org), which publishes the new International Journal of Computer-Supp= orted Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL.org) = as well as the Journal of the Learning Sciences. The authors in this issue have all been invited to submit lon= ger versions of these papers to ijCSCL for its 2006 premiere volume.
REFERENCES
[1.] Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1= 991. Organizational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified view= of working, learning and evaluation. Organization Science 2(1):40--58.
[2.] Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. = 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Sci= ence 12(2):198--213.
[3.] Cobb S, Meale H, Crosier J, = et al. 2002. Development and evaluation of virtual environments for education. In: Stanney, K.M.(ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments.
[4.] Daradoumis, T. and Marques, = J.M. 2002. Distributed cognition in the context of virtual collaborative learnin= g. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13:135--148.
[5.] Dettling, W. and Schubert, P= . 2002. Vicos: The virtual community of students. In R. Spargue (ed.), Proceedings = of the 35th
[6.] Harasim, L. 2003. What makes online learning communities successful? In: C. Vrasidas & G. V. Glass (eds.), Distance Education and Distributed Learning.
[7.] Janneck, M. and Bleek, W.G. = 2002. Project-based learning with CommSy. In: G. Stahl (ed.): Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community,
[8.] Klamma, R., Jarke, M., Holle= nder, E., et al. 2002. Enabling communities by constructed media: The case of a web-based study environment for a Talmudic tractate. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web-based Learning, ICWL,
[9.] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
[10.] Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. 2001. Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online Teachi= ng.
[11.] Pape, B., Reinecke, L., Roh= de, M., et al. 2003. E-community-building in WiInf-Central. In: M. Pendergast, = K. Schmidt, C. Simone & M. Tremaine (eds.), Group ‘03 – Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work.
[12.] Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W. = and Gay, G. 2001. An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactio= ns in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research
[13.] Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities. Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability.
[14.] Swan, K. 2001. Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education 22:306--331.
[15.] Tu, C.H. and McIsaac, M. 20= 02. The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education 16 (3):131--150.
[16.] Wenger, E. 1998. Communitie= s of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
[17.] Wenger, E., McDermott, R. a= nd Snyder, W.M. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice. A Guide to Managing Knowledge.
<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Toc91046089'>Mediation of Group Cognition=
Gerry Stahl
1. mediation of group cognition
The term “community-based learning” can re= fer to a variety of forms of learning. One can, for instance, insist on an individualistic notion of learning and argue that individual learning can be enhanced by factors that may influence it from a supportive community environment. At the other theoretical extreme, one can propose a social conception of learning and claim that most important knowledge building tak= es place at the community level, while individual learning is a secondary matt= er of internalization, acculturation or increased participation in community. Here, we will stake out a middle ground: that community-based learning shou= ld be analyzed at the intermediate level of small groups of individuals within= the community.[1] We point out that small groups typically mediate the relationship of communities to their members and we propose a consideration of small group cognition as an alternative methodological focus to either cognition in the head of individuals or the cultural knowledge of a whole community. This approach has practical implications for CSCL and CSCW: collaboration is tak= en to be a potential emergent phenomenon of small group interaction, and the computer support of collaboration is analyzed as an enabling technology who= se design and use forms and transforms the nature of the interactions.
Let us consider this article’s title a word at a= time. Mediation is the most complex a= nd unfamiliar term. In popular and legal usage, it might refer to the interven= tion of a third party to resolve a dispute between two people. In philosophy, it= is related to media, middle and intermediate. So in CSCL or CSCW, we can say that a software environment provides a medium f= or collaboration or that it plays an i= ntermediate role in the midst of the collaborators. The contact between the collaborators is not direct or im-mediate, but is mediated by the software. Recognizing that when human interacti= on takes place through a technological medium the technical characteristics influence—or mediate̵= 2;the nature of the interaction, we can inquire into the effects of various media= on collaboration. For a given task, for instance, should people use a text-bas= ed, asynchronous medium? How does this choice both facilitate and constrain the= ir interaction? If the software intervenes between collaborating people, how should it represent them to each other so as to promote social bonding and understanding of each other’s work?
The preposition in the phrase is ambiguous. Is of to be taken in a passive or possessive sense? Does the mediation of group cognition refer to how the group cognition is mediated by the technol= ogy? Or, conversely, does it refer to how collaboration and shared meaning are mediated by the group cognition’s act of mediating? This ambiguity is= not accidental: in processes of mediation, that which is mediated, that which mediates and the mediation itself tend to merge into a process of co-determination in which each is defined and refined by the others.
By itself, the term group is quite straight-forward. In this context, we can take it to refer to a sm= all set of people, usually numbering about three to six. But combined with the = term cognition, it strikes many peop= le as counter-intuitive. This is because cognition is often assumed to be associa= ted with psychological processes in individual minds.
The usual story about cognition, at least in the Weste= rn culture of the past three hundred years, goes something like this: an individual experiences reality through his (sic, the paradigmatic rational thinker in this tradition is often assumed to be male) senses. He thinks about this experience in his mind; cognition, stemming from the Latin = cogito for “I think,” = refers to mental activities that take place in the individual thinker’s head= . He may articulate a mental thought by putting it into language, stating it as a linguistic proposition whose truth value is a function of the proposition’s correspondence with a state of affairs in the world. Language is a medium for transferring meanings from one mind to another by representing reality. The recipient of a stated proposition understands its meaning based on his own sense experience as well as his rather unproblemat= ic understanding of the meanings of language.
The story based on the mediation of group cognition is rather different: in this view, language is an infinitely generative system= of symbolic artifacts (words, phrases, genres, etc.) that embody the cultural experiences of a community. It is a social product of the interaction of groups—not primarily of individuals—discussing and acting in the world in culturally mediated ways. Individuals who are socialized into the community learn to speak and understand language as part of their learning = in order to participate in that community. In the process, they internalize the use of language: e.g., as silent self-talk, internal dialog, rehearsed talk, narratives of rational accountability, senses of morality, conflicted dream= lives, habits, personal identities and their tacit background knowledge largely preserved in language understanding. In this story, cognition takes place primarily in group processes of inter-personal interaction, including mother-child, best friends, husband-wife, teacher-student, boss-employee, extended family, social network, gang, tribe, neighborhood, community of practice, etc. The products of cognition—thoughts—exist in discourse, symbolic representations, meaningful gestures, patterns of behav= ior; they persist in texts and other inscriptions, in physical artifacts, in computer databases, in cultural standards and in the memories of individual minds. Individual cognition emerges as a secondary effect, although it later seems to acquire a dominant role in our introspective narratives.
Most people have trouble accepting the group-based sto= ry at first and then starting to view collaborative phenomena in these terms. Let= us take a closer look at the philosophical view which is sedimented in the term “mediation.” It belongs to a tradition that undertook a fundame= ntal critique of the individualistic perspective that goes back to Descartes and even Plato, and that underlies common folk theories about cognition.
2. Deconstructing Mediation
We can start to deconstruct the term mediation as used in CSCL and CSCW by looking at its use in Lave & Wenger’s seminal Situat= ed Learning [2]:
“Briefly, a theory of so= cial practice emphasizes the relational interdependency of agent and world, activity, meaning, cognition, learning and knowing…. Knowledge of the socially constituted world is socially mediated and open ended.”
This theory of social practice can be traced back to H= egel and Marx by way of Vygotsky. Vygotsky described what is distinctive to human cognition, psychological processes that are not simply biological abilities= , as mediated cognition. He analyzed= how both signs (words, gestures) and tools (instruments) act as artifacts that mediate human thought and behavior—and he left the way open for other forms of mediation: “A host of other mediated activities might be nam= ed; cognitive activity is not limited to the use of tools or signs” [5]. Vygotsky recommended replacing the exclusive focus on individual development with a “zone of proximal development” that assessed group cognition, the ability of small groups to achieve intellectual results [5].=
Vygotsky attributes the concept of indirect or mediated activity to Hegel and Marx. Where Hegel loved to analyze how two phenomena constitute each other dialectically—such as the master and slave whose identity arises through their relationship to each other—Marx always showed how the relationships arose in concrete socio-economic history, such= as the rise of conflict between the capitalist class and the working class with the establishment of commodity exchange and wage labor. The minds, identiti= es and social relations of individuals are mediated and formed by the primary factors of the contexts in which they are situated.
The term media= tion takes on a variety of interrelated meanings and roles in discussions of soc= ial theory. The point here is to start to think of group collaboration software= as artifacts that mediate the cognition of their individual users and support = the group cognition of their user community.
3. Mediation by Groups
Small groups are the engines of knowledge building. The knowing that small groups build up in manifold forms is what becomes internalized by their members as individual learning and externalized in th= eir communities as certifiable knowledge. At least, that is a central premise of this article.
Although we can see many examples of the decisive role= of small groups, their pivotal function is rarely acknowledged. For instance, = the two prevailing paradigms of learning in CSCL—which may be referred to= as the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor [3]—focus on = the individual and the community respectively, not on the intermediate small gr= oup. In the acquisition metaphor, learning consists in the acquisition of knowle= dge by an individual; for instance, a student acquires facts from a teacherR= 17;s lesson. In the participation metaphor, learning consists in knowledgeable participation in a community of practice; for instance, an apprentice becom= es a more skilled practitioner of a trade. But if one looks closely at the examp= les typically given to illustrate each paradigm, one sees that there is usually= a small group at work in the specific learning situation. In a healthy classr= oom there are likely to be cliques of students learning together in subtle ways, even if the lesson is not organized as collaborative learning with formal g= roup work. Their group practices may be structured in ways that support individu= al participants to learn as the group builds knowledge. The peer group may also resist the official educational goals; the small group defines what is to be valued as learning. In apprenticeship training, a master is likely to work = with a few apprentices, and they work together in various ways as a small group;= it is not as though all the apprentice tailors or carpenters or architects in a city are being trained together. The community of practice functions throug= h an effective division into small working groups.
Some theories, like activity theory [1], insist on vie= wing learning at both the individual and the community level. Although their examples again typically feature small groups, the general theory highlights the individual and the large community, but has no theoretical representati= on of the critical small groups in which individuals carry on their concrete interactions and into which the community is hierarchically structured.
My own experience in research collaborations and in my
apprenticeships in philosophy and computer science impressed me with the
importance of working groups, reading circles and informal professional
discussion occasions for the genesis of new ideas and insights. The same ca=
n be
seen on a world-historical scale. Quantum jumps in human knowledge emerge f=
rom
centers of group interaction: the Bauhaus designers at
The obvious question, once we recognize the catalytic = role of small groups in knowledge building, is: can we design computer-supported environments to create effective groups across time and space? In order to achieve this, we need a degree of understanding of small group cognition th= at does not currently exist. In order to design effective mediated collaborati= on, we need to develop a theory of mediated collaboration based on a design research agenda of analysis of small group cognition.
Most theories of knowledge building in working and lea= rning have focused primarily on the two extreme scales: the individual unit of analysis as the acquirer of knowledge and the community unit of analysis as the context within which participation takes place. We no= w need to focus on the intermediate scale: the small group unit of analysis as the discourse in which knowledge actually emerges.
Following are some research hypotheses for a theory of= small group cognition:
- The small group is the unit that mediates between individual learning and community learning.
- Community participation takes p= lace primarily within small group activities.
- Individual learning is acquired through participation in these small group activities.
- Both individual identities= and community practices are formed through small group activities.
Here are some theoretical issues to be investigated in= such a research program focused on the small group unit of analysis:
- Can we make learning visible in group discourse (so we do not have to rely upon measures of indirect learning outcomes)?
- Can we identify meaning-making and knowledge-building at the group unit?
- Can we say that it is possible for a group, as such, to think, learn, build knowledge or construct meanings that cannot be attributed to any of the group members individually?
- Can processes of group cognition provide a basis for individual cognition = and learning?
The size of groups can vary enormously. Our examples t= end to be of small groups of a few people meeting for short periods. Given the hypothesized importance of this scale, it is surprising how little research= on computer-supported collaboration has focused methodologically on this unit. Traditional approaches to learning measure effects on individuals. More rec= ent writings talk about communities of practice. Many studies of collaboration = that do talk of groups look only at dyads, where interactions are easier to desc= ribe and qualitatively different from those in larger small groups.
The emphasis on the group as a unit of analysis belong= s at the foundation of a science of collaboration. It is not just a matter of claiming that it is time to focus software development on groupware and to develop appropriate techniques (e.g., for assessment of groupware). It is a= lso a methodological rejection of individualism as a focus of empirical analysis and cognitive theory. Software should support cooperative work and collaborative learning; it should be assessed at the group level and it sho= uld be designed to foster group cognition. For that, we need a fitting theoreti= cal framework centered on an understanding of the role of small groups and the mediation of group cognition.
4. REFERENCES
[1.] Engeström, Y. 1999. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), P= erspectives on activity theory Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19--3= 8.
[2.] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1= 991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripher= al participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[3.] Sfard, A. 1998. On two metap= hors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2): 4--13.
[4.] Stahl, G. (in press). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved f= rom http://www.cis.drexel= .edu/faculty/gerry/mit/.
[5.] Vygotsky, L. 1930/1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Ha= rvard University Press.
Us, Ourselves, and We: Thought= s about Social (Self-) Categorization
Markus Rohde
International Institute for Socio-Informatics (IISI)=
,
David Williamson Shaffer
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Educa=
tional
Psychology, Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory,
ABSTRACT
In a recent Workshop on community-based learning at th= e 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS 2004), one persistent t= heme was the variety of terms used to describe collections of people (group, community, network, collective) and components of interaction (culture, identity, collaboration, cooperation) in group learning activities. Here, we describe some of the thinking that emerged in those discussions, not as a comprehensive literature review or completely elaborated socio-cultural the= ory, but rather as an invitation to further discussion. We suggest that a gro= up is the most generic and general social category: all of the analytical unit= s in the literature on collective learning - teams, social networks, and communi= ties - are groups. We argue that these other terms have additional structural characteristics that make them distinct subsets of the generic term grou= p. For example, a team is a group with a common task, a network = is a group with strong social ties, and a community is a group with a sha= red culture. We propose a two-dimensional space of social organizations characterized by shared culture and shared interaction, and s= uggest both individuals and collectives show a developmental history through the s= pace of collectives, moving from loose group affiliation to increasing identification with, development of, and participation in shared interactio= ns within a shared culture. This analysis suggests, we argue, that: (a) tools = to support “collaboration” may need different affordances for different kinds of collectives; (b) understanding different kinds of collectives requires different methodologies; and (c) culture plays a promi= nent role in the space of collectives we describe, and thus, we argue, should pl= ay a significant role in the analysis of any community. We hope that this brief discussion will lead to further work on the social entities within which gr= oup learning takes place, on the processes of learning in such settings, and on= the technologies that can support such processes.
1. INTRODUCTION
They came as a= group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! T= he whole community is holy.” —Numbers 16:3
1.1. Collectives as Subjects in Learning Processes
Much recent work on socio-cultural theories of learning focuses on the processes of collaborative or (more precisely) collective learning - that is, on how social collectives generate understanding through group learning activities. In such studies, the collective (classes, learni= ng groups, lab groups, teams, learning communities, learning organizations, virtual communities) is at the center of the analytical scheme rather than individual learners in isolation. Similarly, much recent work in computer science on human-computer interaction (HCI) has focused on tools that suppo= rt collaborative work and community-building [3—5; 8; 9]. In such work, = the focus is on the processes of collective action and on computational means to support it in virtual settings.
The complex interplay between collective learning, technological support and appropriate theoretical approaches for studying t= hese issues was the topic of a recent Workshop on Community-based Learning at the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS 2004). One persiste= nt theme in the workshop was the variety of terms used in these fields to desc= ribe the collections of people (group, community, network, collective) and components of interaction (culture, identity, collaboration, cooperation) t= hat were being analyzed and supported.
In this short essay, we describe some of the collective thinking that emerged in those discussions as we attempted to clarify the relationships among different kinds of social groups and the interactive processes that define them. We present these notes not as a comprehensive literature review or completely elaborated socio-cultural theory, but rathe= r as a summary of current thinking and an invitation to further discussion of th= ese issues.
2. SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AND SOCIAL PERCEPTION
In Mind, Self, and Society, George Herbert Mead= [7] made a famous distinction between me, myself, and I, arguing = that the self that constructs the meaning of events and our understanding= of our place in social systems is composed of a socially-constructed “me” and the “I” responsible for constructing the w= orld by self-indicating happenings as salient objects. For Mead, the foundation = of the individual as a social organism is in this dual role of the self as sub= ject and object, indicator and indicated.
Categorization (in this broad sense of the term) is th= us basic to social experience - indeed, to the human experience. The reflexive construction of self depends on the identification of “me” as a certain kind of me, that is, as being similar to or different from others in some way. “We” understand “ourselves” by dividing t= he world into “us” and “them,” into classes of individ= uals who are similar or different along a variety of biological, cultural, econo= mic, and social lines: families, tribes, peoples, races, strata, social classes, genders, nations, cultures and subcultures.
The nature and formation of these socially-constructed collectives is central to understanding learning as a social phenomenon, not least because socio-cultural approaches to learning focus on enculturation = and identity-formation as central mechanisms for learning and development [1; 2= ; 6; 15; 15]. At the same time, however, in dealing with collective subjects fro= m an analytical perspective, researchers in learning science and human-computer interaction tend to refer to collectives in deliberately neutral terms, suc= h as work groups, organizational units, departments, networks, school classes, or learning communities. While such generic categories may be analytically use= ful in some circumstances, the result is that the literature on collective lear= ning sometimes appears less than systematic in delineating functional differences among the central descriptors for the collectives being studied in collaborative settings. Put another way: the nature and meaning of the collective itself is central to the processes of socio-cultural learning, b= ut socio-cultural theories are loose in their use of descriptors for this cent= ral unit of analysis.
This dilemma was one of our central concerns, and much= of our discussion focused on beginning to articulate a more robust framework f= or thinking about the nature and properties of the collectives within which (a= nd upon which) socio-cultural processes operate.
3. FROM GROUP TO COMMUNITY: A FRAMEWORK
3.1. “Group” as Fundamental Social Category
We suggest that the most generic and general social ca= tegory is a (social) group, being any collection of more than one person th= at shares a common attribute which distinguishes them from other persons. What= is crucial is that a social distinction is made between members of the group a= nd non-members. That distinction may be embraced by the group or imposed externally (as when race is legally codified, for example), but in either c= ase the formation of the group results in a process of social identification= or self-categorization as group members [10; 11]. This social identity is b= ased on the awareness that one belongs to a group, and represents the cognitive = dimension of social identity; it is also typically associated with an evaluative and = an emotional dimension of group identification. If a group member knows about = his own group membership and if this membership is accompanied by positive/nega= tive evaluation and emotions, this group membership becomes part of the social identity of a person.
Whether a person is aware of his or her own group memb= ership is largely dependent on the social context and situation. According to s= ocial identity theory and social categorization theory [11—13], = the concept of salience describes the conditions influencing the relevan= ce of in-group/out-group categorizations for self-perception and behavior. To illustrate this concept of salience, take a heterosexual couple trying to e= nter a public swimming pool on “Women Only Day.” In this situation, = the category of sex/gender (the self-categorization of “being male/female”) becomes salient to the couple, while in other social situations this differentiation might not be relevant. Thus, a social group emerges from the interaction of individuals within a context in which the distinctive attribute of the group makes a difference.
We thus suggest that group is the most fundamen= tal social category, in the sense that all of the analytical units in the literature on collective learning—such as teams, social networks, and communities—are groups. However, we argue that these other terms have additional structural characteristics that make them distinct subsets of the generic term group. In the next section of the paper we describe som= e of these distinguishing characteristics.
3.2. Within Groups: Teams, Networks, Communities
A team needs a common task. We suggest that a <= i>team or working group (or conceptual derivates such as small group= or project group) are groups with a common task to fulfill. Team members have self-perception and awareness of team membership that distinguishes the team from the social outside. Teams also need to have some common understanding = of the work they share, a common (or at least overlapping) definition of goals= and subgoals, and personal commitment to work for these goals. But these shared understandings, goals, and identities are tied to the task at hand; the sha= red understanding of team activities, methods, and tools is locally instrumenta= l to the accomplishment of a particular task. When the task is fulfilled, the te= am disappears. In many cases, of course, teams are composed of members of some larger community (see below), and thus shared symbols and patterns of activity may persist as part of that larger community. Stahl (2004, in this Issue) further suggests that as a practical matter, teams are limited in si= ze as well.
Social networks are defined by social ties. A g= roup becomes a network when members are linked by social ties based on social contact and communication - which in network theory are referred to = as knots. Within network theory, the frequency of communications within knots is take= n as the main indicator for the strength or weakness of social ties. Quality of = the communication is of less relevance, and social network analysis uses counts of communicative acts between network knots to determine the structure of the network. We might describe a team, then, as a temporary local network organ= ized around a particular task.
Communities need shared culture. Unlike social
networks, communities cannot be characterized and analyzed only by the quantity of social contacts between
members. Communities, we suggest, are social networks (and therefore groups)
that are defined by the quality of
their social ties. In particular, communities are networks with a shared
3.3. Dimensions of Community
In our discussions, we conceptualized these different characterizations of collections of individuals as part of a two-dimensional space of social organizations (see Figure 1). In particular, we distinguished between shared culture and shared interaction, = and suggest that together these dimensions distinguish between collectives such= as group, team, network, and community, as described above. We added an additi= onal category of experts to the diagram to account for collections of individuals with a shared culture but little interaction. (Note that the set boundaries in the figure are illustrative only.)
![](3D"cbl_files/image002.gif")
Figure 1: A conceptual map of the space of collectives;= the set boundaries are illustrative only. Trajectories of development.
Our space of collectives also suggests a clear develop= mental trajectory over time. Lave and Wenger’s [6; 2; 3; 14; 15] theory of <= i>communities of practice suggests that learning is a process of enculturation into t= he shared practice of the community. This enculturation can be described by a movement/development of newcomers from peripheral participation in the community’s practice to more and more central roles in the community.= On the individual’s side the process can be seen as a process of social identification with the community’s goals, culture, and practice.
From the perspective of the collective, we note that t= he community itself develops through the progressive development of that shared culture. The interactions over time of community members in a contin= uous process of negotiation and deliberation establish a common culture and buil= d a collective identity. The shared culture and shared interactions of communit= ies take time to develop and establish. The concept of shared history of learning [14] thus applies both to the individuals in a community and to the community as a whole.
Put another way, both individuals and collectives show= a developmental history through the space of collectives, moving from loose g= roup affiliation to increasing identification with, development of, and participation in shared interactions within a shared culture.
4. DISCUSSION
It comes as no surprise that the concepts of cultur= e, identity, and history are useful tools in understanding the nature of collectives such as groups, teams, networks,= and communities. We suggest, however, that there may be some utility in beginning to map the relationships among such terms more explicitly. The discussion here is only a small first step in that direction. However, even this small step suggests that tools to support “collaboration” = may need different affordances for different kinds of collectives. The Web is a particularly effective tool for supporting networks of people. Suppo= rting communities, however, will necessarily involve supporting a particul= ar culture, and thus (by definition) particular kinds of interactions. Different communities will, therefore, almost certainly require different k= inds of tools—or tools that can be significantly customized for a particul= ar culture.
Understanding the structural and theoretical differenc= es between different kinds of collectives has methodological implications as w= ell. In particular, the analysis above suggests that social network analysis may= be a useful tool to quantitatively analyze social structures; but it may be insufficient to understand the work of communities, which are marked by sha= red culture, and thus where the quality of social interactions matters as much = as the quantity.
More broadly, this analysis suggests that while the
In any event, we hope that this brief discussion of gr= oups, teams, communities and the similarities and differences among them will lea= d to further work on the social entities within which group learning takes place= , on the processes of learning in such settings, and on the technologies that can support such processes.
5. Author Note
This work was supported in part by a Spencer
Foundation/National Academy of Education Postdoctoral Fellowship, and by a
National Science Foundation Faculty Early Career Development Award
(REC-0347000). Any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed in this pap=
er do
not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies or cooperating
institutions.
6. REFERENCES
[1.] Arnold, P. and Smith, J.D. 2=
003.
Adding connectivity and loosing context with ICT: Contrasting learning
situations from a community of practice perspective. In: M. Huysman, E. Wen=
ger
& V. Wulf (Eds.), Communities a=
nd
Technologies – Proceedings of the first international conference on
Communities and Technologies (C&T 2003),
[2.] Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1= 991. Organizational learning and Communities of Practice: Towards a unified view= of working, learning, and evaluation. = Organization Science 2(1):40--58.
[3.] Duguid, P. 2003. Incentivizi=
ng
practice. Report on communities of practice, knowledge work, innovation,
economic and organizational theory prepared for the Institute for Prospecti=
ve
Technological Studies of the European Commission, Workshop on “ICTs a=
nd
Social Capital in the Knowledge Society”, November 2003,
[4.] Huysman, M., E. Wenger and V=
. Wulf
(Eds.) 2003. Communities and Technologies – Proceedings of the first
international conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T 2003),
[5.] Huysman, M., and V. Wulf (Ed=
s.) 2004.
Social Capital and Information
Technology.
[6.] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991=
. Situated learning – Legitimate
peripheral participation.
[7.] =
Mead,
G.H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society.
[8.] Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities. Designing Usability,
Supporting Sociability.
[9.] Rheingold, H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homestanding on the
Electronic Frontier.
[10.] Simon, B. 1999. A place in =
the
world. Self and social categorization. In: T.R. Tyler, R.M. Kramer, and O.P.
John (Eds.): The psychology of the =
social
self,
[11.] Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups.
Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations.
[12.] Tajfel, H. 1982. Social identity and intergroup relatio=
ns.
[13.] Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., O=
akes,
P.J., et al. 1987. Rediscovering the
social group. A self-categorization theory,
[14.] Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Mea=
ning,
and Identity.
[15.] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., =
and
Snyder, W.M. 2002. Cultivating
Communities of Practice. A Guide to Managing Knowledge.
Re-presenting Collective Learn= ing: A Generative Way Forward
Lachlan.Fo= rsyth@uts.edu.au, Lynette.Schaverien@uts.edu= .au
1. INTRODUCTION
Professional development is increasingly conceived as a sustained group or community process, often supported by online technologie= s. Yet despite the enthusiasm for online communities of practice [40], and the innovative educational contexts being developed to support them, the realit= y of developing and maintaining a critical mass of teacher engagement is proving= to be challenging (for example, the Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) [4]; the Hawa= ii Networked Learning Communities (HNLC) [37]). Teacher educators and designer= s of technological learning environments continually strive to maximize the valu= e of teacher engagement in such contexts, yet the conditions under which social learning and collaboration become an appropriate strategy for teachers rema= in unclear [4; 19]. Furthermore, contemporary research from evolutionary psych= ology [27] and modeling of cultural transmission [5] suggests the likelihood that professional development in sustained groups would involve subtle yet influential social learning strategies. For example, decisions regarding the adequacy of a particular concept or professional behavior may be influenced by the status of the gro= up member advocating it, the frequency of the behavior in the group, or even w= hich idea or behavior was offered to the group first [1].
(Online) teacher communities seem to offer a potent mo= del for professional development that aligns with contemporary understanding of learning as situated, distributed and social [21]. However, there is a need= to test theoretically driven justifications of communities of practice by undertaking empirical investigations into how learning is actually occurrin= g in these social and technological contexts [3; 11; 34]. Obviously, the task of developing strong explanatory frameworks that take us well past simple descriptions is urgent. The fields of astronomy and molecular biology became explanatory fields of science only after harnessing powerful theoretical le= nses borrowed from other fields [7]. When such explanatory frameworks were coupl= ed with advances in technology that expanded the ability to research these fie= lds empirically, the benefits were exponential. In education, design-based rese= arch [38] and subtle but powerful technological contexts for learning may provide the strategic means to move forward.
2. BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL AS A UNIT OF ANALYSIS
Underpinning many of the theoretical perspectives used= to analyse social learning in pre-service and professional development context= s is the work of Vygotsky. Fundamental to this perspective is the notion that hi= gher mental processes have their origin within social processes. “Any func= tion in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it appears between people as an inter-psychological category, and then within the child as an intra-psychological category” (Vygotsky, cited= in Wertsch [41]). Whilst Vygotsky’s theory has problematised the notion = of learning as an individual process, there is little consensus on how best to tackle an analysis of learning beyond the individual. Many studies of online communities, based explicitly on Vygotskian principles, still maintain a un= it of analysis at the level of the individual [2]. This approach may be neglec= ting the potential of analyzing learning as a group, as opposed to learning bec= ause of a group.
Vygotksy’s notion of the ‘collective life&= #8217; as a source of individual learning gave theoretical impetus to ‘thinking’, ‘voluntary attention’ and ‘logical memory’ as group attributes [41]. Vygotsky’s theory of educatio= nal psychology has thus provoked strong interest in notions of distributed cognition [18]; that is, cognition and learning that transcend the boundari= es of the individual.<= ![if !supportFootnotes]>[2] Development on Vygotsky’s interpersonal plane has thus been conceived= as a form of collective learning. Insights from his work have been incorporated into (amongst others) two prominent sets of ideas within educational resear= ch: Wenger’s communities of practice [40] (deriving largely from prior, m= ore general notions of situated cognition [20]) and Engestrom’s activity theory [10]. These approaches help us understand learning within the complex dynamic of a community setting where there is a shared practice or activity [15]; however, neglect of the ‘small group’ as an important mediator between the individual and the community is a concern for some [36= ], given the key role Vygotsky afforded to small groups [41].
Of particular significance to the present paper is Vygotsky’s recognition of the need to move beyond a purely sociocultu= ral understanding of learning – specifically, by asserting the interdependence of the biological and sociocultural realms in ontogenesis [= 41]. This may act as a reminder to educational researchers of the need to be ope= n to possible synergies with contemporary theories in other fields such as biolo= gy, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. Perhaps he was assisting educatio= nal researchers towards a science of education through theoretical models that,= at the very least, recognise the varied realms contributing to any act of learning. Fletcher asserts such “external coherence” as an indicator of a good scientific theory [12].
The biologically based generative theory of learning [= 31; 32] offers just such a perspective for educational research, deriving from neuroscience [8; 9] and evolutionary psychology [26]. In this view, learnin= g is conceived as an adaptive behavior that hedges our chances of survival. “To survive in its eco-niche, an organism must either inherit or crea= te criteria that enable it to partition the world into perceptual categories according to its adaptive needs” [8]. According to generative theory = this process is undertaken through iterative cycles in which learners generate a= nd test ideas based on their value, selecting those ideas that survive these t= ests [9; 26; 31; 32]. The value-driven selection that underpins this process operates through a generate-test-regenerate (g-t-r) heuristic that is identifiable at three nested levels [26]:
- at
the collective level; that is, within the group and culture in which th=
ey
are operating. As suggested already, this collective level can, itself, be
analyzed for learning and progression.
By suggesting a mechanism by which learning occurs at = each nested level, this theory bridges the divide between the individual and the collective. As well, it opens up the possibility of ongoing empirical resea= rch that might well deliver external coherence with contemporary understanding = in the sciences.
The generative theory is already proving its worth for understanding the learning of individual students and teachers [14; 30; 33]= and in re-conceiving e-learning design [35]. Now, its worth in understanding collective learning at the tertiary level is being explored [13]. The conte= xt for this research is an Australian project named DESCANT (SciTech)[3]: a design-based research initiative exploring the worth of an innovative e-learning strategy for scaling up teacher development in elementary Science and Technology education within a geographically diffuse education system. = In its first phase, a small number of teachers (11 in all) were supported to conceive and prototype their own e-learning environment for teacher professional development in Science and Technology education. Such support = was largely undertaken through sustained online collaboration using both generic and boutique software. Following the development of the environment, larger groups of teachers will trial, modify and evaluate the e-learning environme= nt (see http://www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/science/ftp/Folder1/sci= tech/index.htm for details). With its thorough collaborative research design, DESCANT has provided a significant opportunity to investigate collective learning.
3. TOWARDS A MODEL OF COLLECTIVE LEARNING
Generative learning suggests a powerful explanatory framework for collective learning. Now there is an urgent need for an appropriate model that can leverage insight from empirical data concerning = this educational phenomenon. Due to the inherent complexity of a collective lear= ning context, this task is always going to be a methodological challenge. In the DESCANT context, a model of generative learning that was originally develop= ed for analyzing individual learni= ng in technology-and-science education [31] was used as a starting point. That mo= del identifies learning within six acts: exploring, designing, making, operatin= g, explaining and understanding.[4] Whilst it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain each of these acts, = it is important to note that the model is synergistic with the generate-test-regenerate (g-t-r) heuristic.
The generative model was adapted for analyzing learnin= g at the collective level by conceiving of each of the six acts as a collective = or emergent phenomenon. This has proven extremely useful in providing insights into the emergence of shared understandings and values in the DESCANT teach= er collective [13]. As further insights emerge regarding learning at this collective level, there may be a need to expand the model to incorporate a = more explicit representation of such processes as enculturation [5] and the influence of ‘collective intentionality’ [25]. According to Plotkin, “collective intentionality” (after the work of John Searle), may be fundamental in understanding social force, and thus social learning [25]. Collective intentionality:
“…is not the sum of individual intentionalities and is not reducible to them…This does not mean that [it]…hovers in the spaces between people or binds their min= ds through mysterious field forces. Each of us has a mind and mental life that= are confined to our individual brains. But to quote Searle, ‘it does not follow from that that all my mental life must be expressed in the form of a singular noun phrase referring to me. The form that my collective intentionality can take is simply “we intend”, “we are do= ing so and so”, and the like. In such cases, I intend only as part of our intending. The intentionality that exists in each individual head has the form ‘we intend’” [25]. (Emphasis added)
Plotkin’s pragmatism in dealing with collectivity emphasizes the possibility of addressing the link between the neural struct= ures of individuals and the regulation of these structures based on social relationships. This collective regulation in ontogenesis has been described= as ‘structural coupling’ [22] and ‘co-emergence’ [39],= and has been used as the basis for understanding distributed cognition in an educational context [6]. While such perspectives may be of great value in developing a suitable model for empirically analyzing collective learning, = the methodological dilemmas remain. For example, what counts as evidence of collective learning and how do we collect data about such emergent phenomen= a? Furthermore, how do we collect data on a process as subtle and implicit as enculturation: a phenomenon that may be fundamental to understanding how cultural values and shared understandings progress within a population? Yet perhaps in this regard we are in a more fortunate position than Vygotsky was decades ago.
4. A TECHNOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING COLLECTIVITY
Within the physical sciences, the advent of new techno= logies has always played a significant role in the advancement of understanding by allowing humans to engage empirically with what was previously unreachable = [7]. Papert’s vision of technologically rich environments as supplying ‘objects-to-think-with’ made a similar vision explicit for education [24]. In educational research, the explicit nature of communicati= on over the Internet has proven valuable for studying many facets of social learning and community design. Nevertheless, within such online contexts, emergent phenomena such as collective learning remain implicit: something f= or researchers to carve out of the complex context based on their models or theoretical approaches. However, technologies that seek to capture this collective level are now under development. For example, in classrooms, Knowledge Forum software encourages explicit representation of learning wit= hin knowledge building communities [15; 29]. Within a professional development context, Lessonlab technology is affording teachers a cumulative knowledge = base that incorporates a dynamic mechanism for verification and improvement [16]= .
In DESCANT, teachers have identified both the need for= an e-learning environment that makes explicit the progression of learning at a collective level and some ways this might be operationalized. This environm= ent is currently under development and will be trialed, as the final phase of t= he DESCANT project, with a new cohort of teachers early in 2005. For professio= nal development, such an environment may well supply an ‘object to think with’ [24] by making learning at the collective (or even cultural) le= vel more tangible. Furthermore, with this collective realm of learning made increasingly visible and explicit, researchers may be afforded new opportunities to probe more deeply into what now seem to be mysteries of so= cial learning, just as their counterparts in the physical sciences have done so successfully when afforded appropriate technologies.
5. REFERENCES
[1.] Arrow, H. and Burns, K. 2004. Self-Organising Culture: How Norms Emerge in Small Groups. In: M. Schaller & C. Crandall (Eds.). The Psychological Foundations of Culture.
[2.] Aviv, R. 2000. Educational Performances of ALN via Content Analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Netw= orks 4(2):53--72.
[3.] Barab, S., Kling, R., and Gr= ay, J. 2004. Introduction: Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. In: S. Barab, R. Kling and J. Gray (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Cambridge,
[4.] Barab, S., Mackinster, J., a= nd Scheckler, R. 2004. Designing System Dualities: Characterising an Online Professional Development Community. In: S. Barab, R. Kling and J. Gray (Eds= .). Designing for Virtual Communities in t= he Service of Learning.
[5.] Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. 1= 985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process.<= /i>
[6.] Davis, B. and Sumara, D. 199= 7. Cognition, Complexity, and Teacher Education. Harvard Educational Review 67(1):105--125.
[7.] Dunbar, R. 1995. The Trouble with Science.
[8.] Edelman, G. 1993. Neural Darwinism: Selection and Reentrant Signaling in Higher Brain Function. Neuron 10:115--125.
[9.] Edelman, G. 1992. Bright air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind.
[10.] Engestrom, Y. 1990. Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies of Activity Theory.
[11.] Eraut, M. 2002. Conceptual Analysis and Research Questions: Do the Concepts of Learning Community and Community of Practice Provide Added Value? Presented at the: Annual Meeting of the American Educati= onal Research Association.
[12.] Fletcher, G. 1995. The Scientific Credibility of Folk Psychology.
[13.] Forsyth, L. and Schaverien,= L. 2004. Making Generative Sense of Collectivity: Teachers as E-designers of Professional Development in K-6 Science and Technology. Paper presented at = the: Australian Association for Research= in Education (AARE) Annual Conference.
[14.] Hall, R., and Schaverien, L. 2001. Families' Participation in Young Children's Science and Technology Learning. Science Education 85(4):454--481.
[15.] Hewitt, J. 2004. An Explora= tion of Community in a Knowledge Forum Classroom: An Activity System Analysis. I= n: S. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning.
[16.] Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R.,= and Stigler, J. W. 2002. A Knowledge Base for the Teaching Profession: What Wou= ld it Look Like and How Can we Get One? Educational Researcher 31(5):3--15.
[17.] Hutchins, E. 1996. Cognition in the Wild.
[18.] Karasavvidis,
[19.] Kling, R. and Courtright, C. 2004. Group Behavior and Learning in Electronic Forums: A Socio-Technical Approach. In: S. Barab, R. Kling and J. Gray (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Cambridge,
[20.] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 199= 1. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripher= al Participation.
[21.] Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., a= nd Krajcik, J. 1998. New Technologies for Teacher Professional Development. Teaching and Teacher Education 14(1):33--52.
[22.] Maturana, H.R. and Varela, = F. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge: The Bi= ological Roots of Human Understanding.
[23.] Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception.
[24.] Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Po= werful Ideas.
[25.] Plotkin, H. 2003. The Imagined World Made Real: Towards a Natural Science of Culture.
[26.] Plotkin, H. 1994. The Nature of Knowledge.
[27.] Richter, L. and Kruglanski,= A. 2004. Motivated Closed Mindedness and the Emergence of Culture. In: M. Scha= ller and C. Crandall (Eds.). The Psychol= ogical Foundations of Culture.
[28.] Salomon, G. 1993. Editor's Introduction. In: G. Salomon (Ed.). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations.
[29.] Scardamalia, M., and Bereit= er, C. 1994. Computer Support for Knowledge-building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences 3(3):265--283.
[30.] Schaverien, L. 2003. Teacher Education in the Generative Virtual Classroom: Developing Learning Theories Through a Web-delivered, Technology-and-science Education Context. International Journal of Science Educa= tion 25(12):1451--1469.
[31.] Schaverien, L. and Cosgrove= , M. 2000. A Biological Basis for Generative Learning in Technology-and-science: Part II - Implications for Technology-and-Science Education. International Journal of Science Educa= tion 22(1):13--35.
[32.] Schaverien, L. and Cosgrove= , M. 1999. A Biological Basis for Generative Learning in Technology-and-science: Part I - A Theory of Learning. Inte= rnational Journal of Science Education 21(12):1223--1235.
[33.] Schaverien, L. and Cosgrove= , M. 1997. Learning to Teach Generatively: Mentor-supported Professional Develop= ment and Research in Technology-and-science. Journal of the Learning Sciences 6(3):317--346.
[34.] Schwen, T. and Hara, N. 200= 4. Community of Practice: A Metaphor for Online Design? In: S. Barab, R. Kling= and J. Gray (Eds.). Designing for Virtu= al Communities in the Service of Learning.
[35.] Shepherd, J, Clendinning, J= . and Schaverien, L. 2002. Rethinking E-learning Design on Generative Learning Principles. In: A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young and T. Clear (Eds.). Winds of Change in the
[36.] Stahl, G. 2004. Mediation by Group Cognition. This volume.
[37.] Suthers, D., Harada, V., Do= ane, et al. 2004. Technology-Supported Systemic Reform: An Initial Evaluation and Reassessment. Proceedings of the Si= xth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
[38.] The Design-Based Research Collective 2003. Design-based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1):5--8.
[39.] Varela, F., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience.
[40.] Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Mea= ning and Identity.
[41.] Wertsch, J.V. 1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of M= ind.
Can we use a Complex Systems F= ramework to Model Community-Based Learning?
Elizabeth Charles
Learning by Design™ Lab, College of Computing,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
1. INTRODUCTION
The classroom is bustling with activity and Miss Lawson calls out, “five more minutes.” Scattered throughout the room a= re groups of four and five students crowded around each of the five low-standi= ng circular work desks. A palpable buzz of enthusiasm fills the air as these groups deliberate amongst themselves before hurriedly filling in the large sheets of poster paper sitting on their work desks.
Felicity,
There is a constant flow of dialog between the five. R=
aising
her head up from drawing the “motion story board,” Felicity, in=
a
reflective tone, tries to get the group’s attention,
“shouldn’t the net force arrow go the other way?” Her fir=
st
attempt goes unattended, and she tries again, this time shifting to a kneel=
ing
pose, “dudes, I think the arrows go the other way!” Scott stops
what he is doing, turns, and for a few seconds the two recreate the motion =
of
the car through their gestures. “If the car’s moving in this
direction” gesturing to the left, “then the net force is also in
that direction” gesturing to the left.
Working on what appears to be a slightly different tra= ck, Brad, from time to time, turns and scans the wall closest to him. This wall, like all the other available walls of the classroom, is covered with presentation posters from this and other classes taught by Miss Lawson. Wit= hout an exchange of words, Brad moves to the other side of the room and checks o= ut more posters. This apparent unilateral action receives the full endorsement= of the group who all turn when he states “Yeah, group 4-2 also tested st= raw length and their results are the same.” Felicity and Scott flash a qu= ick “I told you so” smile and return to writing in the last required compone= nt of the poster – the “rule of thumb” supported by evidence. Miss Lawson calls out the final “Time’s up!” and the soun= d of feet scurrying and tables moving into position is heard as students plop in= to their chairs. Class period 3 is now ready for their poster presentations! It is finally time for group 3-3 to share the fruits of their labor and engage in this now familiar whole-class activity of presenting what they learned from their experimentation. They are also ready to learn from their classmates’ poster presentations in this collaborative environment. <= /p>
2. BACKGROUND
Over ten years ago, scholars such as Brown and Campione proposed a re-conceptualization of the traditional classroom in order to en= hance the possibilities of learning in real world settings [5]. The central aspec= t of the learning environment was to support learning by providing a rich domain= of knowledge, structure activities to use this new knowledge within that domai= n, guide learning by instruction and modeling of thinking and reflection, and deliberately setting aside considerable time for students to engage in explaining processes to themself and others [6]. Their approach to engineer= ing the classroom was referred to as Foster Communities of Learners (FCL). A mo= re generic use of this metaphor may be identified as learning communities, which describes other collaborative, inqu= iry and project-based learning environments, united by social theory (e.g., Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development; Wenger’s com= munities of practice) [19; 20]. Examples of these types of classroom and curricu= lum projects are found at the institutional research level (e.g., Knowledge-Building Communities at = OSIE [18]), curricula level (e.g., Learning by Design™ physical science and earth science units [14]) and project level (e.g., science curriculum proje= ct [7]).
The success of these instances, as illustrated by the scenario above, demonstrates the importance and potential of multi-voiced/minded construction of knowledge (i.e., shared/social aspect of negotiation of meaning) while engaged in authentic activities. Some have be= gun to look at the various components of these engineered classrooms and what m= akes them successful [7; 16]. One thing is clear: we still do not fully understa= nd how to tease apart the complexity of these learning environments to study t= he interactions of the social and cognitive components while still being sensi= tive to their emergent qualities. In short, how do complex dynamic systems made = up of multiple agents and socio-cognitive/cultural affordances co-develop and cha= nge (i.e., learn) over time? And, from a theoretical perspective, how do we beg= in to construct models of this cognitive development, which accounts for individual (student) and collective (workgroup, and whole class) reasoning = and learning, without taking a reductive approach?
In order to explore ways of understanding these settin= gs and addressing the concerns listed above, I propose adapting a dynamic systems approach, which combines complex adaptive systems theory (CAS) with two oth= er characteristics (timescales and history) of complex systems [3; 10]. The intention of this paper, therefore, is to merely introduce this idea and demonstrate how it may be used to understand the scenario described above (a Learning by Design™ [LBD] classroom). I begin with a brief rationale = and overview to situate the reader, and conclude with an outline of the proposed dynamic systems analytical model and its possible strengths.
3. UNDERSTANDING LEARNING IN CLASSROOMS
Increasingly, learning is viewed as the outcome of soc= ially negotiated activity, situated in potentially rich environments, within comp= lex communities of sometimes unequal participants [9; 15; 17]. Furthermore, from the distributed cognition school of thought, we are asked to extend the definition of cognition from individual learner to include the small group,= or class as learner. Hutchins proposes: “a social group is a cognitive system that may have cognitive properties very different from those of the = individuals who constitute the group” [13]. Although his research describes the cognitive practices of “well-oiled” teams, it is arguable that = it also applies to the communities of learners we observe in constructivist classrooms.
One possible approach to understanding these dense and layered learning environments is to employ the analytical framework of Acti= vity Theory, a cultural-historical theory of activity presented by Lev Vygotsky = and his colleagues [8]. It suggests that cultural means, tools and signs mediate interactions between the human agent(s) and objects in the environment. Bar= ab, Evans & Eun-Ok Baek provide an excellent example of its use as a lens through which they come to understand the design and participation activity= of an online community [2]. Although Activity Theory is a powerful tool for explaining the interactions of socio-cognitive/cultural systems, I propose = it is nonetheless worthwhile to explore the explanatory potential of other mod= els such as the adapted dynamic systems model.
Advocating the use of systems models to explain social
organization and learning is not a novel idea. Boyd argues for the use of
elements of cybernetic theory – “cybersystemics” – =
to
describe classrooms and other social systems [4; personal communications]. =
Barab,
Cherkes-Julkowski, Swenson, et al., propose an autocatakinetic systems approach, which suggests that learning
would be understood best as a “participatory process involving
contextualized practice and meaning as part of an ecological system” =
[1].
More directly, Hurford proposes using
4. ADAPTING HOLLAND
A complex system is a hierarchically organized collect= ion of a large number of coupled components defined by stated boundaries. The smal= lest unit of the system is referred to as an individual “agent” operating under specified rules resulting in a higher level of organization, which exhibits emergent propert= ies. Put simply, emergence is a phenomenon wherein the interaction of a system’s parts (agents) results in a higher order of organization (meta-agent or system) causing the system to behave differently from what o= ne could predict from knowledge of the parts alone, and which takes on a diffe= rent set of operational instructions. According to Holland, complex adaptive sys= tems (CAS) exhibit certain “properties” (Aggregation, Nonlinearity, Flows, and Diversity) and “mechanisms” (Tagging, Internal Models and Building Blocks), which contribute to the process of emergence characte= rized by the unique, amplifying (sometimes dampening), nonlinear behaviors of the= se systems [10].
Expanding on this description, a system’s emerge= nt properties can be viewed as patterns or recurring structures resulting from nonlinear interactions of lower level parts (agents), that are governed by specific rules and relationships. These rules and relationships are the mechanisms that afford emergence, which is the resultant state of coupling = all the lesser processes of aggregation/self-organization, nonlinearity/stochas= tic behaviors, tagging/selection, and flows of resources. Furthermore, tagging/selection mechanisms regulated through flows of resources allow for adaptation of the system. These powerful combinations are all affected by t= he “history” of the system, and unfold over varying “timescales.”
For this paper, I will examine only how the component = “Flows” can be useful in helping us understand learning communities. “Flows” describes the process that allows the system’s resources to be distributed. It may in fact be the glue that holds the syst= em together. By carefully observing flows within a system we can identify all = the relevant nodes (individuals, groups, artifacts, or environmental components) and their connectors (designate possible interactions). Additionally, if we study a system for an extended period, flows also allows us to identify the changing connectors (their appearance, disappearance), which in turn helps = to explain why agents adapt or fail to adapt, as well as the development/adaptation of the system as a whole. “Thus neither the fl= ows nor the networks are fixed in time. They are patterns that reflect changing adaptations as time elapses and experience accumulates.” [10]
5. ILLUSTRATION
To illustrate my point, I will use the CAS characteris= tic of Flows to interpret the classroom scenario described above. It is by no means intended to represent a fully elaborated analysis using the CAS model, but instead provide a flavor of what can be understood about individual and gro= up cognition using this single component.
To start, we identify the system as the classroom, wit= h the workgroups and individuals as meta-agents and agents, respectively. We then identify “information and knowledge” as the major resource with= in the system. The obvious “agent/nodes” are Miss Lawson and the f= ive students. And, the easily identified “connectors” are the verbal communications (Ms. Lawson’s announcement - “five more minutes”; Felicity’s request for information -“what were = the times...?”; Halia’s reply - “for trial one it was...̶= 1;). For the moment, if we look exclusively at this level of interaction we can identify connectors between the teacher and the group, Felicity and Scot, a= nd the onlookers Tara, Halia, and Brad (see Figure 1).
![](3D"cbl_files/image004.jpg")
Figure 1:= Initial observed interactions from the scenario described.
Studying the scenario more closely we recognize that t= he presentation poster (2’x3’ paper and written contents) and classroom walls (poster archives) as other nodes within the system. In fact, these nodes are very significant because they contain the history of the sy= stem and the workgroups. In addition to these nodes, we also recognize a larger number of connectors within the system, such as the kinesthetic actions of = the students (Felicity and Scot gesturing the direction of the force diagrams; = Brad running to the poster wall), which also allow the flow of information within the system.
From this perspective, the limited initial set of interactions becomes a large network of possible interactions (see Figure 2= ). This lens allows us to view Felicity as a significant agent/node, whose question (“shouldn’t the arrow...?”) plays a central role= in connecting other agent/nodes and artifact/nodes. Her initial question, which results from the flow of information within the connector between her and t= he poster, is amplified by subsequent flows of information within the connecto= rs between her and the agent/node Scot; as well as flows of other coordinated activity (verbal utterances and gestures) within the connectors. It also ca= lls the attention of the other members of the group, demonstrated by Tara who chimes in, “I agree with Felicity”, and Halia, who nods in agreement.
![](3D"cbl_files/image006.jpg")
Figure 2:= Closer observation of interactions from the scenario described.
What does this tell us? On the level of the individual= it is reasonable to suggest that Felicity and Scot, who are directly interacting = with a major node/artifact (presentation poster), are most likely actively constructing knowledge. On the level of the workgroup, this CAS lens helps = to explain the role of the presentation poster as a contributor to the group’s cognitive development. It does this by allowing us to view the other agent/nodes, who at first appear to be merely onlookers to this multi-modal exchange, as collaborators through their agreement (verbal and = nonverbal). Although Tara, Halia and Brad do not appear to be directly engaged, the connectors between them and the temporary “cluster” node (Felic= ity and Scot) become more evident as the scenario progresses. And, although Brad’s interaction (connector) with the wall/node (seeking missing information) does not relate to the discussion of the cluster node (Felicity and Scot’s conversation), it does demonstrate that he is attending to= the poster/node. Hence, possibly explaining why his individual cognitive develo= pment may be different from members of his workgroup.
6. CONCLUSION
This sample application using the lens of CAS Flows al= lows us to see some of the value of this model. It can account for the individua= l as well as the group because it focuses on the interactions rather than on any= of the two organizational levels. It also accounts for the history component of complex systems (although this point is not developed). I argue that it all= ows us to explain the “shared enterprise” in such a way as to descr= ibe collective learning in a non-reductive manner.
This is important because we need a dynamic and inclus= ive model, which allows us to account for the multiple agents (student, teacher, workgroup, artifact, environment) and the product of their interactions, wh= ich may be collective artifacts, or collective knowledge. Complex dynamic syste= ms theory provides us with such a tool, and allows us to construct models of t= hese systems so that we may better understand them and predict the impact of cha= nges within them, such as their adaptations, how certain features are selected, = and the importance of history and timescales in the development and evolution of the learning communities.
7. REFERENCES
[1.]
[2.] Barab, S. A., Evans, M., and=
Baek,
E. 2003. Activity theory as a lens for charactering the participatory unit.=
In:
D. Jonassen (Ed.). International Handbook on Communication Technologies<=
/span>
V2 (pp. 199--214).
[3.] Bar-Yam. 1997. Dynamics of c=
omplex
systems.
[4.] Boyd. 1997. Excavating the emergent levels of cybersystemics. R. Glamtle & G. DeZeeuw, (Eds.), Problems of Excavating Cybernetics and Systems, Systemica, 11(1): = 29-42.
[5.] Brown, A.L., and Campione, J=
.C.
1994. Guided discovery in a community of learners. In: K. McGilly (Ed.). Classroom lessons: Integrating Cogniti=
ve
Theory and Classroom Practice
[6.] Campione, J.C., Shapiro, A.M=
., and
Brown, A.L. 1995. Forms of Transfer in a community of learners: Flexible
learning and understanding. In: A. McKeough, J. Lupart & A. Marini (Eds=
.). Teaching for Transfer: Fostering
Generalization in Learning
[7.] Crawford, B.A., Krajcik, J.S= ., and Marx, R.W. 1999. Elements of a community of learners in a middle school sci= ence classroom. Science Education, 8= 3(6): 701-723.
[8.] Engeström, Y., and Miet=
tinen,
R. 1999. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R. Punamaki (Eds). Perspectives on activity theory
(pp1--16).
[9.] Greeno. 1998. The situativit= y of knowing, learning, and research. Am= erican Psychologist 53(1):5—26.
[10.]
[11.] Hurford, A.C. 2004. A dynam=
ical
systems model of student learning and an example from a HubNet participation
simulation. Paper presented at the =
Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
[12] Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition
in the Wild.
[13.] Hutchins, E. (in preparatio=
n).
Material anchors for conceptual blends. Prepared for, The Way we Think: The Nature and Origin=
of
Cognitively Modern Human Beings. 5th Rasmus Rask Colloquium at t=
he
[14.] Kolodner, J.L., Crismond, D= ., Fasse, B., et al. 2003. Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12 (4):495--547.
[15.] Lemke, J.L. 2001. Articulat= ing communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g 38 (3):296--316.
[16.] Poleman and Pea. 2001. Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science= . Journal of Science Education 85:223--238.
[17.] Roschelle and Clancy. 1992. Learning as social and neural. Educ= ational Psychologist 27(4): 435--453.
[18.] Scardamalia and Bereiter. 1= 994. Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences 3(3): 265—283.
[19.] Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Hi=
gher
Psychological Processes. [20.] Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Mea=
ning,
and Identity.
Pedagogical Praxis: Using Tech= nology to Build Professional Communities of Practice
David Williamson Shaffer
Univer=
sity of
Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Educational Psychology, Academic Advanced
Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory,
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade and a half, work in the field of education on communities of practice [20] and/or communities of learners [2] has focused on how individual development takes place with= in the larger context of the norms and activities of a community. Recognizing this, educators working within the sociocultural tradition have focused on documenting the practices of extant communities [12; 18--20; 35] and/or on = ways in which the “community of practice” of the classroom can be improved [2; 25]. Broadly speaking, this work looks at how the traditional = intellectual disciplines (such as math, science, and history) are mobilized in the conte= xt of real-world practices, or how importing more authentic practices into sch= ool settings can develop disciplinary understanding more effectively.
One problem with such approaches is that the tradition= al disciplines focus on knowledge rather than action. The ivory tower is deliberately isolated from the day-to-day problems of life in the world [7]. Mathematicians, historians, and research scientists clearly form communitie= s of practice. It is less clear, however, that their authentic practices are the most useful models for the majority of students—or that the disciplin= es they practice are the most important ends in a post-industrial society.
In this short paper, I describe pedagogical praxis<= /i> [33] as a fundamentally different approach to thinking about communities of practice in educational settings. Pedagogical praxis focuses on the develop= ment of useful and socially valued ways of thinking through personally and socia= lly meaningful activity. That is, pedagogical praxis links learning and doing within the framework of communities of practice, but it does so by reframing two fundamental premises of much recent work. First, pedagogical praxis suggests that professional practices such as medicine, law, architecture, a= nd journalism have distinct and coherent epistemic frames [32] analogou= s to the “ways of thinking” usually attributed to the traditional disciplines. These epistemic frames, rather than the traditional discipline= s, are taken as the educational goal. Second, pedagogical praxis suggests that= by engaging in epistemically faithful adaptations of the reproductive practice= s of professional communities, students can gain access to these ways of knowing—and thus, to ways of thinking that are fundamentally grounded= in the meaningful activities of a post-industrial society.
2. PEDAGOGICAL PRAXIS
New technologies make it possible for young people to participate more directly in the world of adult activities, whether using s= oftware tools to develop new mathematical proofs [21], participating in the collect= ion and analysis of real scientific data [6], or publishing work on the Interne= t. Thus, new technologies make it easier for students to learn about the world= by participating in meaningful activity. This idea is not new; rather, it expl= ains one way that new technologies support Dewey's vision of bringing the “life of the child” into an environment for learning [3].
Dewey argued that knowing and doing are tightly couple= d, and thus learning needs to take place in the context of activity [3; 22]. Moreo= ver, as Dewey suggested in Art as Experi= ence, learning involves meeting and overcoming obstacles in the process of trying= to accomplish a meaningful goal. “Resistance and check,” he wrote, “bring about the conversion of direct forward action into re-flection= [sic]” [4]. Schon argues that professionals enact this link between knowing and do= ing through a process of reflection-in-action: literally, “a capacity to combine reflection and action, on the spot... to examine understandings and appreciations while the train is running” [26]. Schon's work suggests that professionals learn to think in action, and that they learn to do so through their professional experie= nces. Reflective practice involves taking action and then reflecting on the resul= ts with peers and mentors.
As Vygotsky and other theorists have suggested, this reflective process is progressively internalized: the norms, habits, expectations, abilities, and understandings of a community of practice—the ways of thinking and acting of the community—become part of the identity of the individual [8; 19; 20; 36--39]. Lave and Wegner describe a community of practice as a group of individuals who share a repertoire of knowledge about and ways of addressing similar (often shared) problems and purposes. In the process of participating in the learning practices of such communities, individuals develop ways of thinking and ref= rame their identities and interests in relation to the community [20]. For examp= le, journalists share common ways of thinking and working, and individuals who = work in the field of journalism incorporate these ways of thinking and working i= nto their sense of self, coming to think of themselves, at least in part, as journalists.
Different communities of practice (for example, differ= ent professions) have different epistemologies: different ways of knowing, of deciding what is worth knowing, and of adding to the collective body of knowledge and understanding. I have described these different epistemologie= s in more detail elsewhere as epistemic frames: the grammar of a culture of prac= tice that binds practice, identity, interest, and understanding with a coherent epistemology [32]. In the context of professional activities, these ways of knowing are constituted in practice, and the processes of professional trai= ning are designed to link praxis and epistemology through pedagogical activity. Pedagogical praxis thus takes a learning practices perspective [12; = 28], using the ways in which professionals are trained as a model for learning environments. This is in contrast to approaches that develop learning environments based on the activity structures of experts in professional practice in real world contexts [3; 11; 13; 17; 19; 20].
3. DESIGN OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
The challenges in educational design from the perspect= ive of professional learning practices are three-fold. First, one must uncover the structure of learning practices as they are currently constituted: the relationships among activity, pedagogy, and epistemology that different learning practices embody. Second, one has to map the relationships between= the epistemologies of practice and the kinds of understanding (cognitive, socia= l, moral, and practical) that we want young people to develop in the course of their education. And third, we have to develop techniques for adapting exta= nt learning practices to create environments that are true both to the ways of knowing of those practices and to the central skills, habits, and understan= dings that young people need to incorporate given their developmental trajectory. That is, we need to know how professional learning practices work, how they relate to what young people need to learn, and how to use technology to bri= ng those practices within young people’s grasp.
Environments that develop constructive skills, habits,= and associations function as coherent systems [2; 23; 31]. Any successful implementation of a context for learning depends on a clear articulation not only of “surface procedures,” but also of the underlying “principles of learning” [2]. One approach to creating such coherence, explored by many designers of thoughtfully innovative learning environments, is to articulate a set of principles that will guide the desi= gn of activities and assessments [1; 2; 5; 9; 10; 13--17; 24; 25]. A challenge= in this approach is that the number of principles and practical constraints multiplies quickly. Designing an environment that is practical and simultaneously addresses a complex system of requirements can be daunting. =
Pedagogical praxis takes a different approach. Because professional learning practices have evolved into coherent systems over tim= e, pedagogical praxis suggests that professions such as accounting, architectu= re, mediation, engineering, journalism, law, and medicine can provide particula= rly powerful models for developing technology-based learning environments in wh= ich young people can learn important skills, habits, and associations [29; 31].= The model of pedagogical praxis is to uncover the principles embedded in existi= ng learning practices (a problem of cognitive anthropology and interpretive ethnography), develop technologies to help students participate in these practices (a problem of engineering and technology development), and then create experimental learning environments designed to develop life skills through participation in a community of practice (a problem of program desi= gn and action research).
That is, rather than looking to professional practices= to find principles that can be used to design classroom activities to teach ma= th, science, or history, pedagogical praxis seeks to create environments that a= re thickly authentic. Resnick and I [34] have argued that authenticity is an align= ment between activities and some combination of (a) goals that matter to the community outside of the classroom, (b) goals that are personally meaningfu= l to the student, (c) ways of thinking within an established domain, and (d) the means of assessment. Thickly authentic learning environments create all of these alignments simultaneously—for example, in the case of pedagogic= al praxis, when personally meaningful projects are produced and assessed accor= ding to the epistemological and procedural norms of an external community of pra= ctice.
In this vision, new technology reinvigorates Dewey's i= dea of learning important life skills through active engagement in meaningful acti= vity [3]. Young people learn by working as “practicing” professionals [26; 27; 29--31]. Pedagogical praxis focuses on communities (or cultures) of practice not as a means to an end, but as an end in themselves: to help you= ng people incorporate into their identity development a variety of ways of thinking that are used to shape the world in which they live.
The implications of pedagogical praxis are thus quite profound. They suggest that the ways in which professionals acquire their practices may provide an alternative model for organizing our educational system. Thickly authentic adaptations of professional learning practices ma= ke it possible for students to learn through participation in valued reflective practices, and thus give educators an opportunity to move beyond disciplines derived from medieval scholarship constituted within schools developed in t= he industrial revolution—a new model of learning for an era of dramatic social and economic transformation brought about by new technology.
4. REFERENCES
[1.] Bransford, J. 1994. The [2.] Brown, A.L. and Campione, J.=
C.
1996. Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environmen=
ts.
On procedures, principles and systems. In: L. Schauble and R. Glaser (Eds.)=
, Innovations in Learning. New Environme=
nts
for Education,
[3.] Dewey, J. 1915. The School and Society.
[4.] Dewey, J. 1958. Art as Experience.
[5.] Enyedy, N., Vahey, P., and
Gifford, B. 1997. Active and supportive computer-mediated resources for
student-to-student conversations. In: R. Hall, N. Miyake, and N. Enyedy (Ed=
s.),
Proceedings of the Second Internati=
onal
Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning.
[6.]
[7.] Fish, S. 2004. Why we Built = the Ivory Tower. New York Times: May 21.<= /p>
[8.] Gee, J.P. 1992. The Social M=
ind:
Language, Ideology, and Social Practice.
[9.] Goldenberg, E.P. 1996. “Habits of Mind” as an Organizer for the Curriculum. Journal of Education, 17(1): 13--3= 4.
[10.] Goldman-Segall, R. 1997. Po=
ints
of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journe=
y.
[11.] Greeno, J.G. 1997. Theories= and Practices of Thinking and Learning to Think: Middle-School Mathematics thro= ugh Applications Project. American Jour= nal of Education, 106: 85--126.
[12.] Hall, R., and Stevens, R. 1=
996.
Teaching/learning events in the workplace: a comparative analysis of their
organizational and interactional structure. In: G.W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Ann=
ual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
[13.] Hmelo, C.E., Holton, D.L., = and Kolodner, J.L. 2000. Designing to Learn about Complex Systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, = 9(3): 247--298.
[14.] Jackson, S.,
[15.] Jacobson, C., and Lehrer, R. 2000. Teacher Appropriation and Student Learning of Geometry through Design= . Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1): 71--88.
[16.] Kafai, Y. 1996. Learning a =
design
by making games: Children’s development of design strategies in the
creation of a complex computational artifact. In: Y. Kafai and M. Resnick
(Eds.), Constructionism in Practice:
Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World.
[17.] Kolodner, J.L., Crismond, D=
.,
Gray, J., et al. 1998. Learning by design from theory to practice. In.: A.S.
Bruckman, M. Guzdial, and J.L. Kolodner (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Science=
s.
[18.] Lave, J. 1998. Cognition in
Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life.
[19.] Lave, J. 1991. Situating Learning in Communities of
Practice.
[20.] Lave, J., and Wenger, E. 19=
91. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripher=
al
Participation. [21.] Lichtfield, D., Goldenheim,=
D.,
and Dietrich, C.H. 1997. [22.] Menand, L. 2001. The Metaphysical Club (1st
ed.). [23.] Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms:
Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. [24.] Resnick, M. 1994. Turtles,
Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds.=
[25.] Scardamalia, M., and Bereit=
er, C.
1996. Engaging Students in a Knowledge Society. Educational Leadership, 54(3): 6--10. [26.] Schon, D.A. 1985. The Design
Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials. [27.] Schon, D.A. 1987. Educating=
the
Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in t=
he
Professions, [28.] Schwartz, J., and Sherin, B.
2002. Describing science content: Bridging the gap between content and proc=
ess.
In: P. Bell, R. Stevens, and T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping Learning Complex: Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference of the Learning Sciences. [29.] Shaffer, D.W. 1998. Expressive Mathematics: Learning by De=
sign. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. [30.] Shaffer, D.W. 2000. This is
Dewey’s vision revisited. In: D.T. Gordon (Ed.), The Digital classroom: How Technology is Changing the way we Teach =
and
Learn. [31.] Shaffer, D.W. 2002. Design,
collaboration, and computation: The design studio as a model for computer
supported collaboration in mathematics. In: T. Koschmann, R. Hall, and N.
Miyake (Eds.), Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning 2. [32.] Shaffer, D.W. 2004. Epistemic Frames and [33.] Shaffer, D.W. 2004. Pedagog=
ical
Praxis: The Professions as Models for Post-industrial Education. Teachers College Record, 106(7):14=
01--1402. [34.] Shaffer, D.W., and Resnick,=
M.
1999. Thick Authenticity: New Media and Authentic Learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Resear=
ch¸
10(2): 195--215. [35.] Stevens, R.R. 2000. Divisio=
ns of
Labor in School and in the Workplace: Comparing Computer and Paper-supported
Activities Across Settings. Journal=
of
the Learning Sciences, 9(4): 373--401. [36.] Vygotsky, L.S. 1934. Thought and Language (A. Kozulin,
Trans.). [37.] Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society. [38.] Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Mea=
ning,
and Identity. [39.] Wertsch, J. V. 1998. Mind as Action.
Co-Reflection in Online Learni= ng Environments
Joyce Yukawa
1. INTRODUCTION
While peer collaboration is the basis for co-learning = in many groups, in the classroom the prevailing assumption is that teachers facilitate student learning, through course structure, setting learning tas= ks and outcomes, presentation, discussion, facilitating small group learning, coaching, and mentoring, among others. Though instructional design models h= ave recognized that learning builds on interactions between learners and their environments (teachers have moved from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side”), these models tend to focus on individual student learning rather than group learning.
Educational contexts are, by nature, group learning environments. Through the mediation of language, students and teachers acquire new understandings when individuals transf= orm their structures of meaning in response to knowledge frameworks and the mea= ning structures of other individuals. Pedagogy truer to a social constructivist = view of learning would shift the locus of learning toward the group to account f= or these processes of transformation, which according to Vygotsky are based on= an internalization of social experiences that is built on higher mental functi= ons, cultural development, and self-regulation [14]. Gerry Stahl in “Media= tion and Group Cognition” proposes that these processes can best be seen operating in small groups as group cognition, with individual cognition emerging as a secondary effect [12]. In this view, group cognition is both = the process and product of interpersonal interaction mediated by language.
I propose that reflection — done individually and collaboratively — is a core activity of group cognition. Using higher mental functions (e.g., metacognition) and self-regulation, individuals perceive, respond to, and integrate new knowledge gained as a result of the= ir relations with others [1]. When learners co-reflect, their understandings a= re deepened, broadened, and intensified. In online learning environments, the products of cognition — thoughts — as they exist in discourse a= re embodied in the records captured by the computer. In this paper, I investig= ate the nature of reflection and co-reflection through data derived from an onl= ine action research course I recently facilitated.
2. ONLINE ACTION RESEARCH COURSE
In the spring of 2004, I facilitated an online course =
for
learning about action research with two graduate students working toward a
school library media specialist certification in the
The course used the simplest online software available (wiki-style collaborative software), implemented by a learning facilitator = who believes in the importance of “social capital.” I based the cou= rse design on these ideas:
- In contrast, Sarah came to the course with well-develo=
ped
reflection skills. She co-reflected with me as her primary partner. For her
research project, she examined the online questioning strategies she used w=
ith
her tele-mentee for “building a relationship in a virtual setting.=
221;
We actively exchanged email messages throughout her process of focusing her
topic, clarifying action research concepts, coding email messages with her
tele-mentee, analyzing data, and writing her final paper. As she was writing
her paper, she engaged in a significant co-reflection activity. To gain a
deeper understanding of action research, she re-read, reflected on, and
responded to all 11 of the chat summaries I had created to date, giving me
further food for reflection. Importantly, she indicated how online
communication supports the internalization of group-mediated learning:
“When I went into the chat that night I was a little lost. During the
chat, my confusion cleared and I started to feel I had a handle on my ideas.
Later, when Joyce listed out my claims, evidence and possible warrants [in =
the
chat summary], I almost did a double take — she had made everything s=
eem
so clear and at the same time, I don’t think my notes from the chat w=
ere
this clearly set out. I’m so thankful that the wiki enables us to ret=
urn
again and again because if she had just said these things to me, they would=
now
be lost.”
As well as being a learning facilitator, coach, and me= ntor, I was also a co-learner about the art of teaching. Sarah and I had an exten= sive discussion about the nature of constructivist teaching/learning that result= ed in a multifaceted view combining our different approaches. Sarah initiated: “My main question with constructivist teaching is how do you give the student the freedom yet provide the framework so the learning is rigorous? = Is the rigor in the final product that the teacher assigns? This doesn’t seem true to constructivism — it seems the student must determine the assignments?” She noted that she was “too new at independent and action research” to feel confidence in herself as a constructivist learner.
This struck a chord with me: “All semester IR= 17;ve also been thinking about ‘freedom and chaos.’ I reorganized the wiki during spring break because it was getting chaotic. The reorganization= was based on what I learned WITH you and Ruth throughout the semester. You̵= 7;ve sparked an idea for me — I think constructivist learning is successful only with the proper balance of structure and freedom. The structure can co= me from the course; it can also come from the students — inside their he= ads based on prior experience and thinking.”
Sarah responded, “Although you might have seen t= he course as chaos, I never really did because… I trusted you to guide me through whatever needed to be done. I was too busy trying to understand the readings and think of my research question to consider if things needed to = be more structured. I think I was in my own little world.” She also acknowledged the value of her previous experiences for understanding action research, “There have been many times during the course that I felt l= ost, but I framed the information in regard to my teaching and considered how it= was true or how it applied for me in the classroom.” She added that findi= ng the balance of freedom and structure must be challenging in large classes, = “I’m sure you can see that Ruth and I are at different places in our learning and that we react differently to the readings. Imagine if you had a class of 25= -30. How does the teacher create this balance then, in a constructivist setting?”
I realized the need for more course structure while st= ill valuing individual initiative to drive inquiry learning: “I now definitely see the advantages of having more structure in the course from t= he beginning, with the freedom to deviate from that structure along the way if necessary. You mentioned ‘being in your own little world.’ That’s precisely where you should be. I have a quote taped to my bookshelf that inspires me about teaching, from Martha Graham: ‘It is that openness and awareness and innocence of sorts that I try to cultivate among my dancers … it is not a question of putting something in but drawing it out, if it is there to begin with ... I would like to feel that I had, in some way, given them the gift of themselves.’”
Sarah responded, “I like this quote from Martha = Graham — especially the part about education is ‘drawing it out as if = it is in there all the time.’ I think I wouldn’t have agreed with = this quote even about five years ago because I think that education is about exposing students to new ways of thinking or approaching the world, but now= I see that it is true in the sense that in order for the learning to be meaningful for the students, it needs to make sense to them and be personal= ly relevant.”
This discussion helped me clarify my understanding of constructivist learning — that the freedom to co-construct knowledge relies heavily on how an individual learner’s structure of meaning interacts with disciplinary frameworks and with the meaning structures of others. Because of this, teaching is a process of invention.
5. CONCLUSION
While it may be more difficult to identify indications= of group cognition in dyads than in larger groups, similar processes seem to b= e at work. This paper proposes that reflection is a core activity for meaning ma= king and knowledge building at the small group level, whether dyadic or larger. Reflection skills enable learners to perceive, respond to, and integrate new perspectives, and co-reflection achieves a broader and deeper understanding than is possible through individual reflection alone. The students in this study used their reflection skills differently to understand and apply the ideas and tools of action research, but the products of their differentiated learning contributed to group cognition.
These products are embodied in communication that is permanently captured and always accessible online. As Stahl states, “= The knowing that small groups build up in manifold forms is what becomes internalized by their members as individual learning and externalized in th= eir communities as certifiable knowledge” [12]. The online medium enhances the ability to externalize knowledge and thereby strengthens the potential = for internalization by individuals.
What factors may influence group cognition in learning environments? The first is whether the intent to learn as a group exists, related to the instructional model used. Other factors include learning sty= le preference, attitude toward technology, and the degree to which trusting relationships are built.
Regarding technology support for group cognition, this= study suggests that “visibility” and “humanization” are v= ital in the online medium. Lacking nonverbal cues to indicate understanding, confusion, joy, delight, frustration, or anxiety, online communication needs explicitness about thoughts, feelings, and actions to offset the potential = for misinterpretation of messages. The computer software and social capital (respect, trust, concern, and sincerity) should support a high degree of expressiveness, both verbal and visual. This raises other questions. What t= ools and representations should be built into the software? How can the software allow individuals the freedom and flexibility to create and co-create while providing structure, rhythm, and visibility in an efficient manner? What is= the optimum balance? And finally, how can we assess the quality not only of individual cognition but also of group cognition? How do we identify not on= ly individual empowerment but also group empowerment?
6. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Founda= tion under cooperative Agreement No. 0100393. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the aut= hors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation= .
7. REFERENCES
[1.] Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control= .
[2.] Barab, S. A, MaKinster, J. G= ., & Scheckler, R. 2003. “Designing System Dualities: Characterizing= a Web-supported Professional Development Community.” The Information Society, 19: 237-256.
[3.] Boud, D.; Keogh, R; and Walk= er, D. 1985. “Promoting Reflection in Learning: A Model.” In Reflection: Turning Experience into Le= arning. Edited by D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker.
[4.] Bruner, Jerome. 1990. Acts of Meaning.
[5.] Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education.
[6.] Dewey, John. 1997. How We Think.
[7.] Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagog= y of the Oppressed; 30th Anniversary Edition.
[8.] Mezirow, Jack. 2000. Learning as Transformation.
[9.] Paloff, R.M. and Pratt, K. 2= 003. The Virtual Student: A Profile and Guide to Working with Online Learners. <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">
[10.] Preece, Jenny. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability.
[11.] Schon, Donald. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner.
[12.] Stahl, Gerry. 2004. “Mediation and Group Cognition.” This volume.
[13.] Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society.
[14.] Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and Language.
[15.] Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry.
[16.] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., = & Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating Commun= ities of Practice.
Johannes Strobel
Univer=
sity of
Missouri-Columbia,
1. INTRODUCTION
Grounded in constructivist instructional philosophy [5= ] and a view that the purpose of schooling is to prepare students for a changing workplace [7; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, www.21stcentu= ryskills.org], learning scientists turned to communities of practice (CoPs) to get inspira= tion for the design of learning activities in classrooms that resemble the 'authentic' and 'real-world' situations found in CoPs outside of schools. F= or domains that are naturally close to the workforce, like domains in the sciences, technology, engineering, math, and others, it seems a perfect mat= ch and classroom environments are transformed to resemble CoPs [4; 6; 9].
How would a similar attempt work with domains traditio= nally not as close to the workforce and situated in the humanities, and how would domain-differences play a role in the design of CoPs within formal in-school education? The purpose of this position paper is to provide a preliminary examination of the complexity of transferring the ideas of CoPs into the re-design of humanities classrooms. The context of this position paper is an on-going process on re-designing classes that lie in the core of humanities, particularly classes in the Philosophy of Science (PoS) and several classes= in Religious Studies.
While studying the PoS, one engages in questions such = as: “What is the nature of science, scientific explanation, and scientific knowledge?”; “What are the underlying theories of truth in science?”; “What are conceptual consequences modern science imp= oses generally on basic philosophies of knowledge and nature?”; and “What makes an investigation scientific?” In short, PoS asks questions on the assumptions of scientific belief and practice.
Religious Studies is a humanistic discipline that uses= a variety of methodologies from other disciplines like sociology and anthropology. A widely accepted definition of religion states that it is "a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [people] by formulating conceptions o= f a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura= of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" [3], but as an hermeneutic discipline it is better to be cautious, for as Smith (1998) says "One re-defines religion every time one studies it" [= 10].
2. Types of Communities
2.1. Communities of Practice
For a number of scholars, the design of instruction is= the same as the design of practice fields, which means that "designing a learning environment begins with identifying what is to be learned and reciprocally, the real world situations in which the activity occurs" = [1]. Learning outcomes are derived from these situations with authenticity as th= eir most valued attribute; they need to have similar "cognitive demands the learner would encounter in the real world" [1]. In practice fields, students are engaged in domain-related practices around domain-related prob= lems like how to design a bridge, rather than around school problems like well-structured story problems involving right/wrong solutions to formula-driven problems.
In their critique on the shortcomings of practice fiel= ds and their call for CoPs in education, Barab & Duffy argue that schools have inherent problems to becoming practice fields because the activities are st= ill connected with grades - which makes them unauthentic - and they are solely practice-oriented and not oriented towards real contributions to a community outside of their school [1].
2.2. Communities of Reflection
Both approaches - practice fields and communities of practice - have a strong underlying assumption that these CoPs are communit= ies practicing or doing commo= nly performed tasks. It is safe to say that there is a wide acceptance of the f= act that communities of practice in chemistry, for example, are full of people actually doing chemistry and being engaged in a CoP. The situation l= ooks different for the particular approach to practice advocated by a field like= the Philosophy of Science. There are not a lot of communities practicing these approaches outside of academia. Because most practitioners are profes= sional philosophers employed by schools and universities, there are no well-defined CoPs for the Philosophy of Science.
There are, however, a lot of practitioners actively en= gaged in scientific CoPs practicing science. They operate under assumptions within their scientific field, and therefore, in Barab's and Duffy's sense, can be seen as a CoP for the field of Philosophy of Science [1], i.e., a CoP of practicing chemists engages in reflection-in-action as part of their practi= ce as "reflective practitioners" [8]. However, people engaged in the= CoP of chemistry are not necessarily as equally involved in the practice of reflection as they are in the actual practice of chemistry. Reflecting on t= heir assumptions and engaging in a meta-discourse of their own practice does not form the center of their day-to-day work; these may be under-articulated, a= nd tacit elements. I propose a distinction between the overall CoP and the sub-community of reflection (CoR). This distinction might help us to better focus on different elements, functions, and goals of qualitatively different communities within a larger CoP. A field like PoS can help to make reflecti= ve components and tacit elements of a CoP more explicit. Under-utilized fields= or fields which are perceived to have less value for a larger CoP, like PoS, become more important and necessary for broader issues when designing CoPs = in classrooms.
2.3. Communities of Reflection-Practice
So far, this paper has distinguished between a communi= ty of practice and a sub-community of reflection. In the CoP of chemistry there i= s a practice of chemistry and a practice of reflection on doing chemistry. These intertwined communities have well-defined boundaries that are set by professions, widely accepted forms and modes of contribution to a larger community, and they inform each other in their practice.
Let's examine if the proposed distinction is useful, o= r if we need further refinement, by beginning to focus on the domain of Religious Studies. When we try to build a CoP in classrooms, who are the practitioner= s we focus on in the field of Religious Studies? We cannot start with religious professionals like church workers or medicine women. This focus would be too narrow and would include only areas of theology, ministry, or religious education, which are not the same as Religious Studies. The aim of Religious Studies is much broader, and is described earlier in this paper.
If we are not focusing on 'religious' professionals, t= here are no other professions outside of academia and we have to turn to a much larger spectrum to find an example of practice. Human beings and/or differe= nt cultural systems at large come to mind. Religion is a worldwide phenomenon = and depending where individual researchers draw their definitory lines, religio= n seems to be everywhere. This multitude of 'cultural' CoPs are different from the = CoPs described in earlier sections of this paper: the practice is not defined by professions and by well-set boundaries. Other aspects are similar: there are commonly shared practices, well-accepted forms and modes of contribution to= a larger community, and there is a practice of reflection within the different CoPs.
Does the introduction of cultural CoPs help us to buil= d CoPs in Religious Studies classrooms? Engineering professors and students can en= gage in the building of bridges and can reflect on their practice and the practi= ce of engineers outside of classrooms who are building bridges, and it would b= e an 'authentic' activity. Religious Studies scholars would find it difficult and artificial to build religious communities or cults and establish rituals and other religious activities in their classroom. Religious Studies scholars a= nd their students are not producing sacred texts and their time for research a= nd teaching is not referred to as sacred time. Religious Studies scholars, rat= her, are engaged in comparative studies, ontological development, reflections on= the nature of religion, and reflections on the impact of religions in other are= as of culture such as politics.
Religious Studies is consistent with CoPs that deal wi= th a variety of different CoPs and is not necessarily the reflective sub-communi= ty of one particular CoP. The practice of Religious Studies scholars is solely reflective and does not necessarily influence the practice of the CoPs it is reflecting on. I propose a distinction between a community of reflection wh= ich is a sub-set of the community of practice, and a community of Reflection-Practice (CoRP).
3. CLASH OF COMMUNITIES
The search for instructional strategies and design mod= els for communities of practice in school environments revealed several appeali= ng methods, including inquiry-based, discovery-based, real world case-based, a= nd problem-based scenarios, an involvement of out-of-school experts and contri= butions to communities surrounding the school or remote ones through Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
For subject areas that draw their examples from defined jobs, tasks, and problems like engineering or biology, the design of 'real-world' challenges is hard but rather well-structured by definition. Medical and business students are engaged in case studies, often with real patients or clients; engineering students build bridges in parks and environment-friendly houses; bio-technology students unveil genome structur= es to design genetically altered food together with a bio-tech company; journa= lism students are regular contributors to news media; and instructional design students (re-)design training and support systems with human development de= partments.
Designing learning environments that are oriented towa= rds 'real-world' challenges for PoS, Religious Studies, or other similar disciplines is harder and ill-structured, especially if it is not even clear what these might be or how they could be staked out.
Often, the connection with real world problems added complexity and richness into classrooms, which were both seemingly missing = from textbook learning or simplified school examples. For the students though, i= t is more that the problems add an engagement with responsibilities, procedures = and constraints that they are likely to discover in the jobs they seek outside = the classroom. The change that came with a stronger emphasis on the implementat= ion of recent developments in learning sciences was welcomed, not only due to t= he fact that the field of learning sciences responded to a need, but also beca= use the development of newer learning theories was deeply rooted in the fields = of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and other workforc= e-oriented fields.
How do these developments look when applied to the humanities and related fields? We experience a clash of cultures when we br= ing models and approaches of the learning sciences together with subject areas = for which they were not developed, i.e., in which models are implemented rather than developed. The implementation can result in emerging struggles to negotiate data structures and ontologies [4], in inappropriate use of metho= ds, and in conflicts between scientific inquiry methods and hermeneutic ones in historical contexts (see example in [2]).
When the learning sciences meet a subject area like Po= S, with its community of scholars (instructors and practitioners) in the field, questions arise and need to be addressed, such as: “How does the lear= ning sciences community interact with the other community?”; “Are th= ey building a new community?”; “Are they supporting each other or = interfering with each other?”; and “Are they supporting or objecting to ima= ges of the community instead of the community itself?”
I am far from putting value behind the different ways = change can appear from the interaction between different communities. Change can be (not) wanted, (not) desired, or even (un)desirable. However, the interaction and the change still need careful attention.
4. CONCLUSION
Using some classes in humanities as lenses to look at = CoPs, these preliminary thoughts question an uncritical use of the term CoP to describe and prescribe communities without differentiating between different types and functions of communities. The implications of the distinction bet= ween communities of practice, communities of reflection, and communities of reflection-practice and their intertwined relationships as well as the potential and experienced clashes of communities are numerous: concepts, models, and theories developed in the learning sciences might not work as w= ell in some communities as in others. Still, it is in the interest of both, the numerous learning sciences communities and the communities of humanities scholars, to engage in projects that have the goal to enrich students' lear= ning experiences beyond the school walls.
Note: The= author is grateful for comments by Gerry Stahl on an earlier version of this paper= .
5. REFERENCES
[1.] Barab, S. and Duffy, T. 2000=
. From
practice fields to communities of practice. In:
[2.]
[3.] Geertz, C. 1965. Religion as=
a
Cultural System. In: Banton, Michael (Ed.), Association
of the Social Anthropologists Monographs No.3: Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion.
[4.] Klamma, R. 2004. Supporting Communication and Knowledge Creation in Digitally Networked Cultural Science Communities. ACM SIG Group Bulletin= , current issue.
[5.] Reil, M., and Becker, H.J. 2=
000. The beliefs, practices and computer us=
age of
teacher-leaders. Teaching Learning and Computing, the Center for Resear=
ch
of Information Technologies and Organizations,
[6.] Rohde, M. and Wulf, V. 2004. Supporting Communities of Practice in Applied Computer Science Studies, = ACM SIG Group Bulletin, current = issue.
[7.] Secretary’s Commission=
on
Achieving Necessary Skills. 1991. W=
hat
work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000.
[8.] Schoen, D. 1984. The Refl=
ective
practitioner: How professionals think in action.
[9.] Shaffer, D.W. 2004. Pedagogi=
cal
praxis: using technology to build professional communities of practice. =
ACM
SIG Group Bulletin, current =
issue.
[10.] Smith, J.Z. 1998. Religion,
Religions, Religious. In: M. C. Taylor (Ed.), Critical Terms for Religio=
us
Studies.
Supporting Communication and Knowledge Creation in Digitally
Networked Communities in the Humanities
Ralf=
Klamma
and Marc Spaniol
RWTH
Aachen, Lehrstuhl für Informatik V
klamma@informatik.rwth-aac=
hen.de
mspaniol@informatik.rwth=
-aachen.de
1. REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE IN THE HUMANITIES
S=
cholarly
communication in the humanities heavily depends on the discursive nature of
knowledge creation and the media that is in use. This communication has cha=
nged
over the centuries due to the evolution of media, altering not only the
communicational culture of scholars regarding their archives and text
production strategies but also the communication situation in society, lead=
ing
to scientific, artistic, and societal revolutions. The change from scroll to
book in the edition of the Babylonian Talmud is a good example of such a me=
dium
revolution. The interdisciplinary collaborative research center “Media
and cultural communication”[5] was founded in 1999 to rese=
arch the
nature and impact of media on the discourses in cultural communication.
Historically, and by creating new interdisciplinary workplaces for scientis=
ts
in the 21st century, our subproject analyzes the impact of networked
information systems on cooperation and knowledge organization in scientific
communities and public debates.
K=
nowledge
creation processes, also known as learning processes, can be researched by
socio-cultural constructivist theories of learning like those advanced by
Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bateson [1; 8; 11]. Because knowledge creation in sci=
ence
is often a collaborative and communicative endeavour that is based on shared
experience and practice involving the apprenticeship of student researchers=
, we
deploy approaches where knowledge emerges in communities of practice (CoP) =
by
discursive assignment of sense [6; 12]. For historical and actual communiti=
es
of practice in science we make the basic assumption that there are two
disciplinary structures for the archives of the discourses [10]: goal and
forward-oriented (‘linear’) structures on the one hand, and
discursive and displaying (‘non-linear’) structures on the othe=
r.
In the linear case, the ‘old knowledge’ is left behind, vanishe=
s in
the archive, and is replaced by newly published knowledge. In the non-linear
case, ‘old knowledge’ can be introduced into the ongoing discou=
rse
at any time. This type of knowledge is kept in disciplinary dynamic archives
and contextualized in the historical process. In the mediation process,
‘old’ knowledge is not subsumed in the creation of
‘new’ knowledge, but is transcribed and displayed [3; 4]. The
process of displaying this knowledge is inherently linked with the knowledge
creation process and, therefore, is a media problem on its own. The
hermeneutical process is nerved by self-reflective loops of insight and
mediation. The appropriate IS metaphor for these processes is the model of
multimedia hypertext or hypermedia.
S=
upporting
communication and knowledge creation in digitally networked cultural science
communities represents a specific challenge for the development and
organizational-structure of hypermedia information systems due to at least
three reasons. First, the
discursive nature of knowledge creation in the humanities is based on an
intense exposure to hypermedia artifacts and underlying theories that require the
support of different digital media to be combined with (almost) arbitrary
metadata, constituting the situational background of an artifact. These dig=
ital
artifacts have =
special
semantics for each user and each community of practice. Dynamic context
management concepts for digital hypermedia artifacts supporting a high degr=
ee
of semantic freedom are thus needed for discourses in the
humanities. Second, open repositories are an
indispensable prerequisite for scaling such hypermedia systems beyond the
purposes of one community of practice. Scientific discourses in an informed
society would then not be isolated to the ivory tower. Modern systems should
allow clients of any kind to check out and modify archives and bring them b=
ack
into the discussion again, fostering discourse and simultaneously assuring
intellectual property. We are aware that this is not only a requirement of a
class of systems but that it will be accompanied by the transformation of t=
he
humanities themselves.
A=
naive
multimedia understanding - e.g. that hypermedia can transport knowledge -
isn’t sufficient, as complex interrelations between media exist as we=
ll
as complex cultural interfaces to these media [7]. So, advanced hypermedia
management strategies (fluid archives) are a crucial
factor in science and learning processes instead of old-fashioned
de-contextualization strategies propagated in state-of-the-art information
systems.
L=
earning in
communities of practice needs to bridge the gap between semantic freedom in
(almost) arbitrary metadata annotations, scalable repository technologies a=
nd
fluidity. The success of collaborative hypermedia systems heavily depends on
the discursive nature of knowledge creation. Information systems that assist
cross-disciplinary communities of practice should be able to capture,
visualize, and support the ongoing scientific discourse in order to keep
participants informed and committed to the knowledge creation process. Towa=
rd
this end, we present a case study, using the
2. MECCA
T=
he CoP in
this case is composed of people cooperating with our collaborative research
center who are conducting multidisciplinary research concerning facial
semantics in movies. The CoP is physically distributed throughout the
departments of film studies in three German cities. Members of the CoP have
diverse educational backgrounds, e.g. film studies, history of art, graphic=
al
design, and have varying levels of professional experience. The community
members already have different interests and point of views, due to their
educational and cultural background. Their joint enterprise is to analyze t=
he
semantics of facial expression in movies by classification of and comment on
movie scenes in four dimensions: the beautiful face, the dramatic face, the
portrait, and mass faces. By the nature of their research tasks, the commun=
ity
members very often have different points of view on a shared multimedia
artifact, and these differences are expressed through the use of distinctive
vocabularies. When trying to find a common level of communication the commu=
nity
is very often forced to restrict their vocabulary to a minimum or else to m=
ake
use of terms that are irritating to other members having another background=
or
research focus. One example is the meaning of the term “text.” =
An
art historian stated that she would never use the term “text” f=
or
movies, while the other members wanted to use the term in the broadest sense
possible.
A=
major
aspect influencing the CoP is its distribution among several universities i=
n
A=
nother
system requirement of creating individual reference collections was derived
(branched) from the core classification scheme that is common in paper-based
work in the cultural sciences. To progress scientifically, it is necessary =
not
only to externalize individual findings by a classification schema (which is
fine for things such as dissertational work) but also to share and align the
findings with the other members of the CoP in a common classification schema
that promotes the project needs (which is particularly necessary for the
research of facial semantics in movies, independent of the need in general).
Naturally, the views of individuals and the CoP as a whole are often
conflicting, offering innovative potential for research insights and new
research questions. Scientists want to discuss their different point of vie=
ws
and the resulting productive disturbances in the epistemological process.
Furthermore, for writing research papers reflecting the discursive process =
of
knowledge creation, the CoP needs a system that allows the logging and back=
‑tracking
of decisions rendered in the common classification creation process, which
allows for a better understanding of the overall process. The underlying
classification scheme caused such difficulties in interpreting and
understanding the other members’ views on certain aspects that exchan=
geability
and recoverability were other aspects the CoP needed in order to make the
emerging difficulties productive for their continuous learning process.
A=
major
deficit of existing collaboration systems in the humanities is the restrict=
ive
administration of reference collections. In general, reference collections =
(fluid archives) are possible by br=
anching
off from the community archive at a certain point in time. However,
incorporating modifications performed individually or in collaboration into=
the
previously checked out data set in the system is basically impossible. On t=
he
one hand, existing collections might be refined and rearranged almost
infinitely [2], but don’t allow the creation of an individual index in
terms of the categorization scheme. On the other hand, systems like WEL [9]
allow users to check out the overall terminology in order to modify the com=
mon
index for individual purposes, but block its re-insertion into the establis=
hed
community-wide system. To allow parallel processing of hypermedia in refere=
nce
collection annotations, categorizations and dependencies can be checked out=
and
compared for similarities and differences. The visualization of the results=
is
then a consequent step in supporting the discussion process that makes the =
emerging
difficulties in the semantic capturing productive. It allows user adaptatio=
n of
the underlying classification scheme as well as assigning hypermedia artifa=
cts
to certain categories. Additionally, recovery and loading features are incl=
uded
to exchange and discuss the categorizations within the CoP and to compare t=
heir
development over time.
T=
he focal
point for collaboration in cultural science communities is a collective
multimedia artifact repository because it represents the basis for all
activities within the CoP. This requirement makes a logical united reposito=
ry
essential. However, this might lead to problems in cases of the CoP having =
only
part-time access to web resources. Personal and group collections can also =
be
used, but here the need for protecting intellectual property and branching =
data
sets in reference collections can lead to conflicts as well. This leads to =
more
or less fine-grained community self-organization issues, particularly in re=
gard
to the protection of intellectual property. This disturbs, somewhat, the th=
eory
of a community of practice, but it is inevitable because of the tendency of
individual researchers to follow their own career plans instead of the plan=
s of
the shared practice. To ensure the intellectual property rights of the
individual members of the community - again, a centralized component - a me=
thod
is needed to identify a CoP as itself, and to identify roles within that
community. Based on the role of a community member within the system, an
individual might be allowed to perform only a limited set of actions or mig=
ht
not be allowed to access all the documents stored within collections. Anoth=
er
aspect is the search and retrieval features to find previous hypermedia
artifacts and the comments pertaining to them not only on the global hyperm=
edia
artifact set, but on shareable group collections as well. Discourses in the
humanities commonly start with research on the results achieved in former
discourses. Following Foucault, we can say that the discourse creates the
things it is talking about. Researchers aim at refining the underlying theo=
ry
that is to be applied to hypermedia artifacts as a result of their discours=
e.
The retrieval and re-contextualization of previous discussion stored in
collections and hypermedia structures is of even greater importance than
before.
I=
n 2002,
the
3. Acknowledgement=
s
T=
his work
was supported by the German National Science Foundation (DFG) within the
collaborative research center SFB/FK 427 “Media and cultural
communication,” and by the 6th Framework IST programme of =
the
EC through the Network of Excellence in Professional Learning (PROLEARN)
IST-2003-507310.
4. REFERENCES=
[1.] =
Bateson,
G. 1973. Steps to an Ecology of Mind.
[2.] Fendt, K. 2001. Contextualizing Content. In: Knecht, M.,
Hammerstein, K. (eds.): Languages a=
cross
the curriculum.
[3.] Jäger, L. 2002. Transkriptivität. Zur medialen Logik =
der
kulturellen Semantik. In: L. Jäger, G. Stanitzek: Transkribieren - Medien/Lektüre.
[4.] Jäger, L., Stanitzek, G. (eds.) 2002. Transkribieren - Medien/Lektüre.
[5.] Klamma, R., Spaniol, M. 2004. Open Hypermedia Management for
E-learning in the Humanities. Proce=
edings
of ICALT 2004.
[6.] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated
learning – Legitimate peripheral participation.
[7.]
Manovich, L. 2001. The Language of =
New
Media.
[8.] Piaget, J. 1957. Construction of reality in the child=
,
[9.] Schmidt, J.W., Sehring, H.-W., Warnke, M. 2001. Der Bildindex z=
ur
Politischen Ikonographie in der Warburg Electronic Library -Einsichten eines
interdisziplinären Projektes. In: Archivprozesse.
[10.]=
Snow,
C. P. 1959. The two cultures. <=
st1:City
w:st=3D"on">Cambridge,
[11.]
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and
Language.
[12.] Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Supporting Communities of Prac= tice in Applied Computer Science Studies
Ralf Klamm=
a
Lehrs=
tuhl
für Informatik V, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Markus Rohde
IISI - International Insti=
tute for
Socio-Informatics,
Volk=
er Wulf
Institute for Information Systems,
Fraunhofer
Institute for Applied Information Technology (FhG-FIT),
ABSTRACT
T=
he authors
discuss the experience of a longitudinal study of the course “High-te=
ch
Entrepreneurship and New Media.” The course design is based on
socio-cultural theories of learning and considers the role of social capita=
l in
entrepreneurial networks. By integrating student teams into the communities=
of
practice of local start-ups, we offer learning opportunities to students,
companies, and academia. The student teams are connected to each other and =
to
their supervisors in academia and practice through a community system.
Moreover, the course is accompanied by a series of lectures and group
discussions. So far, the course has been conducted three times at RWTH Aach=
en
and the
1. COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING IN APPLIED COMPUTER SCIENCE
T=
he course
“High-tech Entrepreneurship and New Media,” now in its fourth y=
ear
of existence and held at two German research universities, is the result of=
the
unhappiness of the authors with classical and “new” e-learning
teaching efforts in applied computer science at German universities. Among
others, we made three observations that we want to address here: 1) Even th=
ough
many students worked as software developers in local entrepreneurial and
established companies, their practice was not reflected in university teach=
ing
at all. In singular cases the work led to successful joint diploma thesis
projects and excellent job offers. Our idea was to establish a course that
stabilizes the reflection of student practice and to move the newest ideas =
of
software engineering from the university into practice. 2) Local high-tech =
companies,
founded mostly by university graduates, were only loosely linked to their
birth-giving universities. Compared to US universities, the level of
interaction between academia and industry is too low. The innovation potent=
ial
and the needs of the companies are not addressed in a sufficient way. Our m=
ain
idea was to offer entrepreneurs a platform to reflect about their experienc=
es,
to sensitize students for entrepreneurial activities, and to let students w=
ork
on real-world problems instead of fabricated lab examples. 3) The way new
teaching technology is introduced leads to disappointing results in computer
science. Often technologies only mimic classical teaching methods or mask t=
he
pedagogical disorientation in applied computer science between the curricul=
a of
the natural sciences and engineering. Our idea was to apply socio-cultural
theories of learning and identity building [1; 11; 17—19; 21], follow=
ing
our enquiries of US entrepreneurial education and networks around the MIT (=
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA) area, and suitable collaboration to=
ols
to small connected groups of computer science students working on real world
problems in local companies.
B=
ecause we
rigorously documented and evaluated the course from its early days until no=
w,
we have a huge amount of data which, for several reasons, we constantly lin=
ked
to the applied theories. On the practical side, we re-designed and adjusted=
the
course in reaction to the analysis made and the overall dramatic change in =
the
German university teaching system (
2. COURSE STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION
I=
n the
course, several groups of computer science students each work on a concrete
project task for a start-up company. The courses are accompanied by a serie=
s of
lectures in which university lecturers and practitioners present topics
relevant to entrepreneurship and media. The cooperation of students and pra=
ctitioners
in carrying out a common real-world task should allow the establishment of a
shared practice and, therefore, mutual learning. Group-oriented learning
processes, especially among the student teams and between them and their
academic advisors, ought to be facilitated by a community system. Thus, the
instructors put task-relevant learning materials on the community system.
Moreover, it was supposed to work as a forum of discussion among students a=
nd
guest lecturers from industry and academia. The system supported cooperation
within and between working groups. Additionally, it has been used as an arc=
hive
for lecture and project materials.
I=
n the
first meeting, the students interested in the course were introduced to the
basic concept of this type of courses; the tasks were presented briefly and
project groups were formed. The students then chose one of the presented
project tasks and formed appropriate working groups. Following this, studen=
ts
took an intense two-day tutorial on software engineering methods, project
management techniques and other relevant issues. The students had meetings =
with
their start-ups in order to gather information about their objectives, proj=
ects
and working methods. The project groups and tutors compiled and agreed upon
concrete project aims for the execution of the practical tasks, and a reali=
stic
project plan that was to be examined in the first review. With regard to the
accompanying lecture, speakers from academia and practice rotated. The stud=
ents
got perspectives from management consultants, venture capitalists, software
developers, and personnel specialists, who supplied topic-referred empiric
reports and were available for discussions and critical inquiries. In the
reviews, the project groups mutually presented each other their results and
discussed the further procedure together with the lecturers and experts. Th=
ese
review sessions also served to exchange experiences and offered the possibi=
lity
of one group benefiting from the progress and findings of another project g=
roup.
At the end of the term, students, lecturers, and entrepreneurs had a final
meeting. The project results were presented by the project groups and
discussed.
3. EVALUATION METH=
ODS
T=
he authors
follow the idea developed by Gerry Stahl that community-based learning shou=
ld
be analyzed at the intermediate level of small groups of individuals within=
the
community [16]. Therefore, we mainly observed the performance of the studen=
ts
within the groups. The materials were created, collected, and analyzed by
advanced students of psychology under the supervision of a trained
psychologist. We used different qualitative methods for the enquiries: 1) t=
he
lecturers composed several lecture analyses, which stated progress, discuss=
ion
with students, and other characteristics. For extern lecturers, these proto=
cols
were composed by university members; 2) explorative semi-structured intervi=
ews
with students and supervisors from academia and industries were conducted. =
All
interviews have been recorded with DAT-recording and fully transcribed. In =
the
evaluation, the answers were transformed into a table categorized by the ro=
le
of students and academic and entrepreneurial supervisors. The interviews ha=
ve
been analyzed descriptively; 3) interaction within the community-system was=
recorded,
as was email-exchange between students and their cooperation partners in the
start-ups; 4) as part of the final arrangement and subsequent to the
presentation of the project results, a 45-minute open discussion took place
between students, lecturers, and cooperation partners from the start-ups, w=
here
students especially were asked to give feedback concerning the concept and
structure of the lectures. The course of discussion was recorded.
4. COMMUNITIES OF = PRACTICE (CoP), SOCIAL IDENTITY, AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN ENTERPRENEURIAL NETWOR= KS
To find evidence that our ideas had overcome the
observations we noted in the first section, we compared our empirical analy=
sis
with the analysis we made while studying the entrepreneurial teaching and
networks around MIT in the
- Type 1: Matchmaking eve=
nts like
informal beer-and-pizza meetings or formal dinners to reduce risks of
contacting possible business partners.
- Type 2: Social families such as shar=
ed
dormitories, classes and research labs (peer group effect).
- Type 3: Personal reputation networks=
for
economic action gained through personal expertise and experience.
- Type 4: Inter-organisational relatio=
ns
between start-ups, the university, and venture capital firms by means =
of
intellectual capital management.
T= hese four types of networks are not independent from each other. For balancing lock-in syndromes, transactional openness, value injection, trust, and solidarity a= ll four kinds of social networks are needed. If we assume that the situation in the Boston region is far better than in Germany, and if we assume that we c= an improve the situation locally by fostering learning among students and among other members in the network, we can analyse what our impact was and is. We have reported elsewhere about design flaws and practical problems in the co= urse and how we dealt with them. Here, we want to concentrate on the question: <= /span>Did the students learn how to network?=
W=
e know
from our study of entrepreneurial networks in
Nevertheless, good personal relationships and rich soc= ial capital were established between some students and practitioners. Self-orga= nized and non-hierarchical structures supported the building of social capital wi= thin the groups. In all groups, learning mechanisms of legitimate participation = proved successful, especially if the students reported on high-intensity learning = as part of their collaborative practice in the groups. In particular, a Thai student in the third instance of the course at RWTH Aachen was asked to pre= pare her master’s thesis in computer science for the very same company with which she did the course project. Moreover, her mate was also able to get a thesis topic in the company. In such situations it is hard to analyze to wh= at extent the reputation building process of the course has contributed to the final result. We see this as an indicator that we were successful in establishing networks of reputation in the region (type 3).
The personal reputation of the supervisors from the university within the entrepreneurial networks has been leveraged by the courses. The supervisors are included in information exchange networks and = are invited to start-up related events like business plan competition, company fairs and so on. In particular, the contact between the course supervisors = and the local university entrepreneurship center from which lecturers were invi= ted to present in the course lecture series helped to establish stable relation= ships and social capital within the reputation network of the high-tech/new media cluster (type 3).
The events are part of type 1 networks, which foster i=
nitial
matchmaking and reduce risks of cold calls by opening informal meeting
opportunities. Seldom, if ever, do computer science master student visit th=
ese
events. Most of the attendees from the university are PhD students or alumn=
i.
This is very different from the situation around MIT (add to that the fact =
that
the number of events is a magnitude higher in
The fourth network type is very different in the
To conclude, we can say that the type 2 and 3 networks=
are
being supported by the course directly but because of regional differences =
the
support for type 1 and 4 networks can be leveraged in the future. This is
important because type 1 and 4 networks can prohibit members of type 2 and 3
networks from social and cognitive lock-in situations. First, we provide a
general openness of the network for newcomers. Second, we ground actions in=
to
reality. To follow the careers of students we need to install a long-term
monitoring system which allows us to keep track of the student’s
development. This should be a function of the community system that is in
place.
5. REFERENCES
[1.]
Bateson, G. 1973. Steps to an Ecology of Mind.
[2.= ] Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and Communities of Practi= ce: Towards a unified view of working, learning, and evaluation. Organization Science 2(1): 40--58.=
[6.]
Huysman, M., and Wulf, V. (eds.) 2004. Social
Capital and Information Technology,
[8.]
Klamma, R., Jarke, M., Rohde, M., et al. 2003. New Approaches to
Media-Supported Project Work at the University Level. In: Proceedings of
ICALT 2003, 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies.
[10=
.] Lave,
J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated le=
arning
– Legitimate peripheral participation.
[11=
.]
Piaget, J. 1957. Construction of reality in the child.
[15.] Rohde, M. and Shaf=
fer, D.
2004. We, Ourselves, and Us. This
volume.
[16.] Stahl, G. 2004. Mediation by Group
Cognition. This volume.
[18=
.]
Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Identity and
Intergroup Relations. [19=
.]
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., et al. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group. A Self-categorization Theory. <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on"> [20=
.]
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Pra=
ctice.
Learning, Meaning, and Identity. [21.] Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. =
Thought
and Language.
<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Toc91046099'>Come_IN: Using Computers to Foster the Integration of Migrant Communities<= /span>
Gunnar Stevens
Michael Veith
Volker Wulf
1. OVERVIEW
Modern western societies are facing the challenges of immigration and integration. The main criterion for social participation an= d democratic collaboration is the successful integration of immigrants. A lack of social= as well as cultural integration, especially among young immigrants, seems to be the consequence of a low level of education and unequal opportunities. Immi= grant children who are enrolled at primary schools, for instance, show significant deficits in tests of German language acquisition in comparison to German pu= pils on the one hand, and even to other immigrant pupils of their parent’s generation, on the other.
Moreover, corresponding to this drop of linguistic competence, the social gap seems to be growing along the so-called digital divide. Thus, in the last years, several attempts have been initiated to en= able underprivileged social groups to access computers. The concept of Computer Clubhouses (CCH) is of special interest in this regard.
Motivated by discussion about the concept of the CCHs =
and
the theoretical learning approach of the Communities of Practice (CoP), the=
concept
for the intercultural computer club Come_IN has been developed and put into
practice. This year it has been opened officially in “Bonner
Altstadt,” one of the city of
1.1. The Bonner Altstadt Neighborhood
Come_In has been built up in cooperation with St. Mari= en, a catholic elementary school in the neighborhood. The school implements the a= ims, values and methods of the reform-minded pedagogical learning paradigms of M= aria Montessori. The school is considered exemplary in realizing innovative pedagogically didactical practice. The curriculum focuses on open- and work-oriented lessons, e.g. in small groups, workshops, and projects. Each classroom is equipped with two or three computers that can be used as resou= rces in the daily work. For more than a decade, pupils are taught in classes with mixed age-groups. The pupils of the St. Marien School come from very differ= ent social and cultural circumstances. About 35% of all pupils are of Turkish origin and have been poorly educated. There are a considerable number of ot= her immigration children as well.
The district where the project takes place has a popul=
ation
of about 10,000 inhabitants. The social and cultural structure of this dist=
rict
can be characterized as a colorful mixture of different communities[6].
Today’s situation in the quarter is a result of post-war urban
development. In the 60s and 70s, many better-off inhabitants moved away and=
the
housing conditions deteriorated. Later, they were replaced by people search=
ing
for new and cheaper accommodation, namely immigrants and students. Some
statistical data characterize this situation today: the quarter has a high =
rate
of immigrants (22.7% of the population of the district, compared to 12.5% o=
f
2. COMPUTER CLUBHOUSE APPROACH
Initiated in 1993, the concept of Computer Clubhouses =
was
put into practice. In cooperation with the former
The core principles of the clubhouses are as follows: = a) to support learning through design experiences; b) to help youth to build on t= heir own interests; c) to cultivate an “emergent community”; and d) = to create an environment of respect and trust [9]. Hayes et al. demonstrate the difficulties of bringing this espoused model of the CCH into practice [4]. = That team also shows how it collides with the actual needs of its members.
Communities of practice (CoP) are an interesting way of explaining learning and knowledge acquisition processes [6; 12]. This idea follows from socio-cultural learning theories, which understand learning as= a collective process. This process is linked to specific contexts of action. Learning in a CoP is defined by the relationship of groups of old-timers and newcomers that are inside the community. By means of legitimate peripheral participation, newcomers are confronted with the practice of old-timers, which built the core of a CoP. This situation has some similari= ties to the principle of cultivating an emergent community in the CCH.
As newcomers interact, work, and communicate with old-= timers, their experiences increase. This phenomenon indicates that learning in a Co= P is a process of growing into the community. Furthermore, CoPs are characterize= d by common conventions, language, tool usage, values, and standards. A CoP is inseparable from issues of (individual and social) identity. Identity is ma= inly determined by the negotiated experience of one's self in terms of participa= tion in a community and the learning process concerning one's membership in a Co= P [12].
3. INTEGRATION AND THE ROLE OF ICT
T=
he aim of
integration and full participation is difficult to reach if immigran=
ts
stay separated. Particularly in towns and cities where autonomous immigrant
communities are emerging, the problem of isolation can become significant. =
This
can lead to the condition that both parents and children acquire too little
linguistic and intercultural competency to communicate with members of other
communities.
In the following sections, we will focus on the role o= f ICT. Because we deal with social phenomena like integration and communication, t= he perspective on this role is more socially oriented than in traditional approaches. To make our argument easy to follow, we present a broader but simplified view of ICT to the reader. Of course, such a view does not pay f= ull tribute to the complexity of the topic:
3.1. Cross Community Building<=
/st1:PlaceType>
From a superficial perspective, the problem described =
above
is a problem of a lack or a gap in education. So, in a terse manner, the
problem would be easy to solve if computer programs transferred knowledge, =
and
thus, filled the gap in education. However, considering socio-cultural lear=
ning
theories, it seems obvious that the source of the problem lies deeper ̵=
1;
namely on the level of identity. In
3.2. Participation of Parents in the Learning Process
We assume that the participation of more than one gene= ration in computer-supported project activities will encourage intercultural communication. The more generations that are involved in this process, the = more likely it will appear that socio-cultural and linguistic barriers can be surmounted, as experiences of numerous generations can build up a richer co= mmon identity. Besides that, one specific insight from the practical context of = the primary school St. Marien is that targeting only the children of immigrants= . This obstruction of the learning process is possibly based on the parents’ disinterest in schooling, in both its practical and theoretical classes. Th= ere is a gap in social learning that cannot be solved by increasing the intensi= ty of only classical schooling. The process of integration has to be considered integrally, which means that parents (as they are part of the social contex= t) have to be included. By doing so, socio-cultural learning is fostered. As a further result, participation allows the parents to benefit from their children’s learning progress.
3.3. ICT as a Door Opener into the Communities of Immigrants
So far, we mainly discussed the social environment in = which we want to use computers to foster integrative community processes. However= , we did not answer one important question: Why does ICT (for our purposes, computers) play an important and highly specific role in the process of integration? To answer this question, we want to explain the role of comput= ers by drawing an analogy to the implementation of a corresponding development = aid[8] project. The comparison between integration work and development aid is justified, as both deal with the problem of how a modernization process can= be promoted from the outside of a community.
The underlying purpose of the development aid project = was to teach female Tunisian farmers the capability of western cattle owning and breeding techniques [2]. But besides the transfer of pure technical knowled= ge (know-what and know-how), there was also a focus on the transformation of identities that were linked to the technology. By doing so, the learning was supposed to become a sustained progress. Dersch describes the structure of = this transformation as follows:
[It] shows that the transforma= tion process takes place on two different levels and at different speeds. Modern technical, economic or institutional innovations are more quickly and easily adopted by a traditionally oriented culture than are changes in normative behaviours and social attitudes [2].
The characterizing role of technology in this transfor= mation process lies in its ability to integrate people from foreign communities in= to the process of technical knowledge acquisition. This opens opportunities where a common working practice - which is related to a specific technology - can be transferred to a community of practice. In this respect, the concept of the CCH is turned up= side down: The existence of a community = is not necessarily obligatory to start learning processes. Rather it is the other = way round. The motivation to acquire technical skills can be used to set cross community processes in motion. However, community building is a social process, so it is not guaranteed that a common interest in technology will = lead to a community of practice. But, we believe that the learning process will = be sustained if the transformation from common practice to a community of prac= tice succeeds.
When we transfer this insight to the concept of come_IN we can show that ICT can f= ulfill the role of an attractor or motivator for participation. Motivation to learn about computers functions as some sort of entrance card or an impetus for t= he integrative transformation processes.
3.4. The Come_IN Project
Based on the considerations presented above, we develo= ped the concept of an innovative computer club. In cooperation with the element= ary school it became possible to put this concept into practice. In addition, by examining the workings of the club we were able to get first insights into = its potential.
After a preparation period of 18 months, the Come_IN
computer club was opened officially in March 2004. Since its opening, it has
been running each Wednesday from
3.5. Children Together with Parents
Education is not only a publ=
ic
affair. Parents have to care about the education of their children, as well=
. Schools
and parents should work together to promote the learning of their children =
[5].
Improving this cooperation and integrating parents into the schoolwork of t=
heir
children was one of the major reasons the elementary school was interested =
in
participating in this project.
Thus, as a rule, a child may only come to the club if accompanied by at least one of her parents. This regulation ensures the inclusion of parents with the learning process of their children. Children learn from parents and vice versa. In addition, it is hard for elementary school kids to manage complex projects themselves. So, opportunities are gi= ven to the parents to realize their own ideas. Foreign and German parents communicate with each other. Again, the computer plays an important role in this process as it builds the fundament of shared practice in the club community. Especially in the Turkish community, it is seen as an opportunit= y to achieve (further) social success.
3.6. Working on Projects
Current topics, latest news and daily problems influen=
ce the
establishment of new projects. Relevant topics are put into local and regio=
nal
contexts to provide a platform for a multicultural dialog. Mainly
socio-cultural and ecological questions that influence the pupils’
everyday life and their experiences are discussed. As a first project focus=
in Come_IN, a multi-media documentation of a
multicultural family history of the quarter is set up. Right now, the third
generation of Turkish immigrants lives in the district, which emphasizes the
motivation for this project. The goal is the creation of a shared multicult=
ural
history. Especially the first generations of immigrants, who came to
Learning in this context does not appear in a behavior= ist manner, but more likely through a process of constructing. Supported by computers, all participants in the project get the opportunity to search for historical and social sources within their personal context. Others may lea= rn from the resulting artifacts. Based on an emergent common identity, it is possible to reduce prejudices (yet, we assume that this already happens dur= ing the process of constructing). As a result, integration in this context is n= ot a social utopia but the product of common and shared practice that includes respect and comprehension.
3.7. Playful Acquisition of Computer and Media Skills and Competences
By the playful computer-supported acquisition of media competences, participants learn how to work practically with innovative too= ls in a natural manner. This naturalness will allow both the children and their parents to master new challenges more easily. It provides occupational chan= ces for the children in the future whereas parents may achieve further social development and participation in their social life. Furthermore, children g= et the chance to explore their own interests. They will externalize these interests by constructing multi-media artifacts, which again may help other= s in their own learning process. Intercultural barriers will be surmounted. This effect, plus the attraction of computers and new media, will safeguard the survival and further success of the computer club.
4. THE FUTURE
Actually, the current state of Come_IN must be seen as= a success. One indicator for that is the high rate of participation from the German and the Turkish community. But, for a deeper and more precise evalua= tion it is still too early. We will examine the future progress of the club with= the help of ethnographical studies over a longer period. The results will be the basis for the further development of the concepts. With regard to the common practice within the club, an evaluation will have to deal with the following issues:
(1) What role does computer-supported project work play in regard to social networki= ng, intercultural communication and identity building within the quarter? What = are the underlying mechanisms of computer-supported project work? What impacts = do specific features of the concept have for the common practice, such as lear= ning across different generations?
(2) How will the different members of the club acquire computer skills? What are the requirements for appropriate computer applications and what type of technic= al innovations are necessary?
(3) How will linguistic as well as computer competencies of the participants interf= ere with each other?
(4) Which local and regional criteria influence the establishment of an intercultural computer club? Which preconditions have to be fulfilled in order to increase the chance of long-= term success?
5. REFERENCES
[2.]
Dersch, D. 1997. Transformation und Autonomi im Leben Tunesischer
Bäuerinnen. Eine Struktural=3Dhermeneutische Analyse eines
Beratungsprojekts.
[3.=
] Esser,
H. 1996. Ethnische Konflikte als Auseinandersetzung um den Wert von Kulture=
llen
Kapital. In: Die Bedrängte Tol=
eranz.
Ethnisch-kulturelle Konflikte, Religiöse Differenzen und die Gefahren
Politisierter Gewalt.
[5.]
Lanfranchi, A. Gruber, J. and Gay, D. 2001. Schulerfolg bei Migrationskinde=
rn
dank Transitorischer Räume im Vorschulbereich. In: Sammelband des NFP 39 Migration (Hrg.).
[11=
.]
Unbehaun, H., Stra^=
6;burger,
G., and Yalcin-Heckmann, L. 1997. Die Türkischen Kolonien in
[12.] Wenger, E. 1998. Commu=
nities
of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity.
Student Communities in a Dista= nce-Learning Environment
Thierry Is=
ckia
Insti=
tut
National des Télécommunications
9 rue= Charles Fourier, 91011 Evry Cedex, France
Charles De=
lalonde
Franc=
e Télécom
R&D
BP98,=
38243
Meylan Cedex, France
Charles.Delalonde@Franc= etelecom.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Distance Education (DE) is becoming increasingly impor= tant as its rapid growth rates demonstrate. However, recent statistics on DE show low retention rates and a poor return on investment (ROI) in various progra= ms. We need a better understanding of what are the critical success factors for DE environments for all constituencies (students, instructors, and institution= s). We still misinterpret the reality of this kind of practice, both from the teacher’s and the learner’s point of view [1]. In this article,= we focus on the collective dimension of the learning environments. In fact, entering a virtual learning community appears as a rational choice for the students to retrieve information more rapidly [3] and examine with available peers the actual content. But, students occasionally express a natural anxi= ety about sharing their difficulties with strangers, which partially explains t= he barriers in establishing trusting and caring learning communities [2]. Well-sequenced pedagogical courses and frequent contacts with the professor seem to strengthen the cohesion and integration of the students in a group. Consequently, educational choices and the global architecture of the course= , by influencing the formation of these groups, try to compensate — at lea= st partially — for the deficiencies of DE. The goal of this paper is to propose solutions to overcome low retention rates and ROI in order to deplo= y an efficient DE program using the key solution of a web-based course in an Ame= rican public university.
2. METHODOLOGY
To collect the data for this study, we interviewed stu= dents enrolled in an introductory MIS course taught exclusively online. Each semester, over 1200 students register for this 16-week course. They learn a= bout management of information systems and Microsoft Excel. The students were pl= aced in sub-groups of 30 members to recreate a classroom environment and facilit= ate emerging learning communities. The professor enforced strict rules with reg= ard to this course, including assignment posting in discussion groups every oth= er week and numerous Excel / MIS exams. To reduce student requests, a "three before me" rule was established: to question the professor, students must have first tried to g= et answers for their question in three other ways (syllabus of the course, discussion group, chat with a peer).
3. OBSERVATIONS
3.1. Group Discussions are not Utilized Effectively
Discussions groups have not been utilized effectively.= Each sub-group had its own discussion group (discussion group 1,2,…,40). Students had to post answers to their assignments in this location. Access to these forums was restricted to the 30 members. Additional forums were made public by the professor including:
- Excel Is= sues - a forum utilized to post questions regarding Excel assignments.
- Technical Support - a forum utilized to post questions regarding any technic= al problem encountered during the course.
The group discussions, the most adequate place to deve= lop a sense of community, were not utilized. The only messages posted in these fo= rums were replies to assignments. These groups were rarely used to ask questions= to other students. As Celina mentioned: "There really was no posting in our gr= oup as far as problems: there is only one posting."
Most of the messages posted in the sub-group discussio= ns were assignments or forced replies to other students. When they needed to a= sk questions students used the Technical issues and Excel support discussion groups. Consequently, the discussions on these two forums were not focusing= on Excel or Technical Issues, but on any problem that the students might have encountered (Figure 1).
![](3D"cbl_files/image008.jpg")
Figure 1: Examples of subjects discussed in online forums.
3.2. Redundant Messages
Messages posted in the discussion groups were simple a= nd could be easily answered by the students themselves if they would read the content of other members' postings. Messages posted in the discussion groups and interviews clearly demonstrate aggravation from students whom have read= the content provided in the course. Yet, the worst aspect of these redundant messages was the confusion they created for certain students. Paula argued = in the Excel issue discussion group: "It is frustrating to hear the same questions over and over. I wonder though if there is confusion on this one because the course reminder keeps showing ‘News’ with subtitle = ‘one quiz must be submitted soon’, even after exam one is taken?”
Instructions and answers for this question could be ea= sily found by the students on the course pages, but the number of redundant mess= ages triggered confusion. Learners did not realize that posting a message without reading others was rude and is comparable to asking the same question over = and over in a traditional classroom setting. In a traditional educational situation, this would not be tolerated. It is an accepted part of flounderi= ng online communities, as it was in the case of our course. In fact, prior research has indicated: "norms that lead to good online etiquette are a stepping-stone to social capital" [4]. Consequently, students lost confidence in the question/answer system that was not providing them with t= he desired response. Questions accumulated in the technical and Excel question forums and discussion groups.
3.3. Absence of Community
The lack of community and trust was evident during interviews. Students did not utilize the help from others in their ISM grou= ps. They chose to go out of the course to find peer support (friends, co-worker= s). In fact, they were reluctant to interact with the professor following guidelines (three before me rule), and did not want to post in the intimida= ting large discussion groups. One student actually mentioned: "basically, I know one thing this class taught us is how to network ". To succeed in this course, learners had to organise themselves in study gro= ups: "Every Friday, we meet up in t= he Magruder lab, and we start to go over the Excel and Assignment" (Lucetta L.).
4. ANALYSES
Discussion participation and student interviews clearly indicate the necessity to update our pedagogical method. We ought to find in existing online communities technical and organizational solutions. In this part we are going to consider the concept of learning communities from an examination of best practices. At first sight and from a purely structural point of view, the pedagogical approach that we observed at UCF is similar = to that of a learning community. To be precise on this point, we can say that = in a "community of practice&quo= t; partnership refers to tacit knowl= edge combined with considered practices and associated with purely professional problem-solving activities. On the contrary, in a "learning community" exchanges among members revolve around explicit knowledge that is restricted constantly in a given domain. These a= re exactly the objectives of the community we studied. It is designed to learn about Excel and to construct operational knowledge associated with this too= l. But before going any further let us observe the elements which make up a learning community.
When a group of people has become a community they dis= play a caring attitude with regard to each other [4]. Here, it is useful to mention that this type of behavior does not appear so much on the forum as in the direct exchanges between the students. The students who attend the classes = are required by the teaching module to ask two questions in the forum and likew= ise to respond to two of the questions asked by their fellow students. If the purpose of this requirement is to prime the pump and launch discussion, it = has a perverse effect in regard to group dynamics and the underlying learning processes. In effect, if the rules are to ask and respond to two questions,= why go any further? In fact, the teaching module requirements obliterate the learning dynamics at the heart of the community. An analysis of the exchang= es on the forum do not exhibit features of co-operation or caring, which are considered to be essential characteristics of learning communities, except = in a watered down, artificial manner.
The most significant point about this was revealed dur= ing student interviews where many of them explained that they had arranged to m= eet frequently and regularly both on and off campus. For example, those who liv= ed far from the university would plan to meet in the local public library to discuss their difficulties, find solutions to their problems and help out o= ther members of the group. Others told us that they regularly asked their friend= s or members of their family more familiar with Excel to find answers to their questions and then shared the information with other members of the group. = In other words, the "community" was created outside the established = learning module tools because these were considered too inflexible.
Members of these groups also told us that they had pre= ferred to stay in touch and exchange information using their own electronic communication tools. Therefore, it seems that communities were created outs= ide of the learning module and without utilizing the communication tools provid= ed. In our opinion this phenomenon illustrates the difficulties of managing interactions "mechanically" between members of a community. It se= ems that to impose too rigid a regulatory model on a learning community will da= sh any nascent spontaneity.
This is related to the more general question concernin=
g the
directing or managing of communities and the associated pedagogical
"devices." On this point, and more specifically concerning
communities of practice, Wenger says, "Just
because communities of practice arise naturally does not mean that
organizations can't do anything to influence their development" [6=
]. Guérin
comments on this saying that, "Wenger's
argument is itself potentially contradictory, in wanting to preside over the
fate of a spontaneous phenomenon" [5]. We can represent the
pedagogical implication in a learning community by a triangle whose points
represent respectively, the community (the group), the learner (a student),=
and
the person who facilitates the encounter between the subject to be learned,=
the
student and the group (a teacher). The subject to be learned sits at the ce=
nter
of the triangle. We noticed little communication both within and between
groups, and that the students rarely interrogated the tutor (respecting the
rule of "three before me"). In the end, we observed a rearrangeme=
nt
of the pedagogical structure and its technological tools outside the formal
framework of the institution. This is indicated in our schema by the dotted
lines connecting the learners with their peers (friends, family, etc.), who
replace the original tutor or professor (Figure 2). The rearrangement of the
central, social links of the learning community results in the emergence of=
ad
hoc groups at the heart of the community from the very beginning and, in
addition, the perimeter of these groups
![](3D"cbl_files/image010.jpg")
rarely coincides with the form initially envisaged by the teaching module.<=
/p>
Figure 2: Schema of the rearrangement of the pedagogical struct= ure.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
The pedagogical organization of this course is deterministic. Spontaneous student activities were difficult to express. The students did not have the right virtual environment to meet using the techn= ical tools provided. Clearly, the structure of the course, the strict guidelines students had to follow and the heterogeneity of the student body prevented learning communities from emerging. We recommend a better organization of o= ur discussion groups to take advantage of our diverse student body.
At the beginning of the semester, students had to comp= lete a practice quiz to access the first module. This first evaluation should be u= sed to assess the level of our students. Instead of asking twelve similar questions, we suggested ten website related questions, ten MIS related questions, and ten Excel related questions. This test should be administere= d in the “add and drop” period. The result of this test would help us better segment students in categories: regular users and power users. The number of power users should be divided by the number of groups. Then these power users should be placed equally in each sub-group. The rest of the students should be added in the various discussion groups. This recommendat= ion relies on the belief that caring among users is necessary and "contagious" [4]. We believe that students, if provided with the correct incentives, will help and care for each other.
After grading the pre-test, we identified the power us= ers. Part of the grading for this course included posting MIS related responses = and replies to two other students. The power users could then be offered the following trade: instead of participating in the discussion groups by responding to other students, they had to help others in their group to pro= vide technical answers. At the end of the semester, if the other students participate in the discussion groups, the power user will be rewarded accordingly. We believe that certain behavior is contagious: the fact of se= eing power users help other students will cause learners to be inclined to participate and help their peers.
This proposition suggested that the two discussion gro= ups (Excel Issues and Technical Issues) be disabled. In effect, we wanted to concentrate the discussions/questions that might arise from students to the= ir individual discussion groups only. This should tentatively help us to avoid= the propagation of unnecessary messages in public discussion groups. Yet, we mi= ght observe similar questions within different discussion groups. We enjoyed in= the past when students replied to other’s questions in the "largest audience" discussion group, i.= e., Technical Issues or Excel Support. In this new organiz= ation, if the professor realizes that it is necessary to inform the entire classro= om of an issue, he will use the main discussion group (a one-way discussion gr= oup where only the professor can post messages – student's messages are automatically discarded). This relies on the idea that community enhances students’ experiences and learning. In addition, we believe that a smaller student group and the participation of power users will provide a fertile environment for emerging communities.
5.1. Various Recommendations
5.1.1. Ice-Breaker mandatory
We suggest including a simple ice-breaker where studen= ts can introduce themselves: Major/Birthplace/Hobbies. Obviously, this short messa= ge has to be restricted to the group place.
5.1.2. Explicit title
The postings from the students on the discussion groups should be very explicit. In fact, we cannot force it, but, we might propose that discussions without a clear title should not expect an answer. Explicit titles would be presented at the beginning of the semester including [EXCEL] for an Excel related question or [TECH] for a Tech related question. Assign= ments should also be titled properly such as [ASSIGNMENT].
5.1.3. Contextual help files
The professor suggested that we should create a "hyperlinked" Web page that would send the user directly to the associated “help files.” This technological enhancement provide= d to the user must have with it restrictions on redundant postings, perhaps by taking points off grades for infractions. For instance, if a student asks a question on the discussion group that has already been asked in the past he loses points. Students will then think twice before carelessly questioning their peers. The help files should also be developed using drop-down menus = and presented separating the content: Excel help, MIS help, etc. The help files should be numbered. In fact, we want power students to refer to these files= by number (after a question from the student, the Power User might propose to = look at help file # 24). The help files will be designed using the most frequent= ly asked questions from previous semesters. A voting system will have to be implemented at the end of the help file to find out if the help file helped= the student or not. The top three could be posted in the Home Page or in the Ma= in discussion group.
6. CONCLUSION
The entire E-learning or DE project placed the student= in the middle of the learning experience, and aimed to horizontalize knowledge transfer (student-to-student rather than professor-to-student), involving the student in his learning experience. Ye= t, results are not satisfying and students are progressively loosing confidenc= e in this pedagogical concept. After observing and interviewing students from an online web-based course we realized the importance of caring learning communities in knowledge creation. We recommend segmenting students accordi= ng to their level and give various guidelines to correctly administer large on= line classrooms.
7. REFERENCES
[1.] Lagrange, J.-B. and Grugeon,= B. 2003. Vers une prise en comp= te de la complexité de l'usage des TIC dans l'enseignement. Revue française de pédag= ogie 143: 101--111.
[2.] Foucault, B., Metzger, J.-L., et al. 2003. Les réseaux
d'entraide entre apprenants dans la e-formation: nécessité et
efficacité ? Education Perma=
nente
152:95--106.
[3.] Metzger, J.-L. 2003. La formation à distance entre dynamique
des collectifs et articulation des temps sociaux. France Télécom Recherche & Développement,
n° RP/FTR&D/8326 novem=
bre.
[4.]
Preece, J. 2004. Etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice :
Stepping-stones to social capital. =
Journal
of Universal Computer Science (in press).
[5.] Guérin, F. 2004. Le concept de communauté : une illustration exemplaire de la production de concept= s en sciences sociales? 13&egr= ave;me Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS), 1 au 4 juin.
[6.] Wenger. E., McDermott. R., and Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating
Communities of Practice.
Woei Hung
1. INTRODUCTION
Lewis=
, Snow,
Farris, et al. stated in the
The decreased quality of social interaction in online learning environments is usually attributed to the decreased degree of soci= al presence. Social presence is defined as “the degree of awareness of another person in an interaction and the consequent appreciation of an interpersonal relationship” [9]. Short, Williams, and Christie argued that social presence is essential in person-to-person communication [6]. As= the degree of social presence declines, the communication is perceived as more impersonal. According to Argyle and Dean [1] and Wiener and Mehrabian [11],= the two components of social presence are intimacy and immediacy. Intimacy refe= rs to physical proximity, visual cues (such as eye contact, body language), and topic of communication. Immediacy regards the psychological distance that is set by the signaler to the receiver in an event of communication. Immediacy could be verbal and nonverbal, such as physical proximity, facial expressio= ns, formality of dress, or body language.
A factor that contributes to determining the degree of intimacy and immediacy is information richness. Daft and Lengel [2] describ= ed information richness as the capability of information to alter or clarify understanding within a given timeframe. Information richness is usually use= d to classify media’s capacity to deliver intimacy and immediacy. In terms= of degree of information richness, face-to-face is the richest medium for communication, and impersonal written documents contain low degrees of information richness [10]. Face-to-face communication affords the richest information for the receiver to determine the degree of social presence. The reason for that is not only because of the face-to-face medium’s capability to provide immediate feedback or the visual cues that the signal= er exhibits, but also because of the ambient cues from the environment. That t= he two physical and psychological measures - intimacy and immediacy - share a common indicator of physical proximity also provides a theoretical explanat= ion for the high degree of social presence in face-to-face communication.
Present formats of classrooms can be roughly divided i= nto two main categories: traditional face-to-face settings and online courses. = In the order of degree of information richness, online courses can be further classified as (1) with videoconferencing capability, (2) with audioconferen= cing capability, (3) with synchronous chat room capability, (4) with asynchronous discussion board capability, and (5) instruction and content display only. Whiteman [10] suggested that information-rich media facilitates communicati= on by increasing opportunities for overcoming different frames of reference possessed by the members of the communication event. Also, the higher capac= ity for processing and decoding complex, subjective messages in information-rich media helps an individual more easily interpret the psychological aspect of= the message. Therefore, the face-to-face classroom setting is the most ideal me= dia for affording optimal social presence because of its capability of providing full-scale intimacy and immediacy. Online classroom settings could provide various degrees of social presence depending upon their capability for information richness.
As mentioned earlier, social presence is a critical fa= ctor that affects the quality of social interaction within a group, and conseque= ntly influences the dynamics of the group. Creating a learning environment with a high level of social presence not only benefits the learners’ need fo= r social interaction, but also provides opportunities for collaborative learning. Collaborative learning enhances learning by providing the learners with multiple perspectives on the issues under study from each of the members in= the learning community and promotes active engagement in the learning processes [5]. Moreover, collaboration is a core component in the establishment of a learning community. The learners’ development of a sense of learning community will be greatly influenced by their perception of the social pres= ence of other members.
With respect to the low social presence of online lear= ning environments, there is a call for an effort to create a “human touch = of attentiveness to their students” in distance learning [8], and facili= tate online learning experiences that more closely resemble traditionally accept= ed practices [4] when implementing online courses. The low social presence in online learning environments creates an invisible obstacle that hinders the development of a sense of a learning community among the online learners an= d, in turn, sometimes decreases the learners’ desire to take online cour= ses or undermines their learning outcomes. Thus, the question of how to increase the two major components of social presence: intimacy and immediacy, is an important issue in distance education research [9].
2. THE CASE
The
In order to solve this dilemma and still keep our prom= ise to provide equal quality education opportunities to our students, we have developed a blended instructional delivery method to satisfy the students’ needs and to balance the cost of offering courses at multip= le locations. The blended instructional delivery method we use is a combinatio= n of in-class and virtual class meetings. Instead of employing multiple instruct= ors or an instructor who teaches at different locations at different times for = one course, the course is taught by one instructor with multiple sections. The multiple sections of this course take place at the same time but at differe= nt locations. The instructor is on one campus leading class sessions with stud= ents in a computer lab, other students are in a computer lab on another campus, = and still other students participate from their offices or homes. All students = are equipped with the necessary hardware and are able to run a videoconferencing system via a high-speed Internet connection. All students may choose to physically attend class (either on the site where the instructor is or at t= he site where only the students are attending), or to participate in the class virtually from their homes or offices.
The main rationale for choosing and implementing this =
method
of instructional delivery is to optimize the students’ learning outco=
mes
and experiences by finding a balance between the quality of students’
learning communities and the limitations of the university. Developing and
delivering instruction totally online is an easier solution. However, enhan=
cing
the quality of learning is more important than seeking a convenient solutio=
n.
In this case, helping students develop a sense of a learning community in
online learning environments by promoting the quality of social interaction=
is
our focus for reaching the goal. Social presence is a critical factor in
determining the quality of social interaction. In this case, under the
practical considerations and limitations that we have, the blended instruct=
ion
delivery method provides a viable solution to solving administration proble=
ms,
and at the same time, maintains maximum quality of education for the studen=
ts.
In the order of intimacy and immediacy, the degree of social presence in th=
ese
three types of classroom settings in the blended instruction delivery method
is: (1) the classroom with the presence of the instructor and the students,=
(2)
the classroom with the students only, and (3) virtually participating in cl=
ass.
The first setting, without doubt, provides the maximum quality of social
interaction. The second setting is a compromised solution that provides less
than perfect quality of social interaction for the students. The third sett=
ing,
participating in classes virtually from home or the workplace, provides the
students who are not able to physically attend any of the classrooms due to
geographical or time restraints with the opportunity to take the class.
The two physical class meeting sites are two computer = labs on two campuses. In these two computer labs, each workstation is equipped w= ith BITS synchronous online collaboration software, a set of headsets with a microphone, a webcam, and a T1 connection. The BITS collaboration system has the functions of text-based chat, videoconferencing, application sharing, a= nd messenger. The students who choose to participate in the virtual class meet= ing have to install the BITS system and the necessary hardware themselves. The = BITS system requires a broadband Internet connection due to the high bandwidth demand for conducting a videoconference during the class sessions. Because = this blended instructional delivery method was implemented in our program for the first time this year, we were interested in what impact the technology impo= ses on the students’ learning in terms of building a learning community as well as individual learning. We were particularly interested in how this blended learning environment (face-to-face plus semi-face-to-face plus tota= lly virtual,) affects (1) their interest and motivation to learn and participat= e in the class, and their perception of the interaction with the instructor and other students (physically present or virtually present), (2) the degree to which social presence affects students’ interest and learning outcome= s, given that students choose whether or not to participate virtually.
Based on informal observations of the students’ attendance and interactions both online and in the classroom throughout a semester, and interviews with the students, we found the blended instruction delivery method to be an effective means for enhancing social interaction a= mong students. The following describes what we learned from the implementation of this class.
Our observations confirmed that the degree of social presence is a critical factor for increasing the quality of social interact= ion. Given the choice of participating in the classes by having to come to the meeting sites or by meeting with the class virtually from home or a workpla= ce, a majority of the students chose to come to the meeting sites, either with = or without the instructor’s presence. This indicated that intimacy and immediacy do play an important role in formulating a more accepted mode of social interaction. Videoconferences could provide the learners with more face-to-face intimacy and immediacy, however, the lack of ambient environme= ntal information in the videoconferencing environment degrades the learners̵= 7; (both signalers and receivers) perceptions of social presence due to its li= mited affordability of information richness. In the need to seek psychological and social support from the learning community, the students felt that forming a real-life learning community was more important than their own convenience.=
One tradeoff of the blended instruction delivery metho= d was that the degree of social interaction in the classroom decreased compared to face-to-face classroom instructional delivery due to the physical setting of computer labs and the format of interaction. Even though the students were present in the same physical location with or without the presence of the instructor, the class sessions proceeded in a form of terminal-to-terminal communication, rather than face-to-face. This could have resulted from two factors: the setting of the computer lab or the students’ adaptation = to this new instructional delivery method. The physical arrangement of the labs had the computer terminals arranged in straight rows with the monitors on t= op of the desks. Furthermore, because this blended instructional delivery meth= od was implemented in our program for the first time, both students and the instructor were probably still habituated to the typical online class mode.= The main classroom interaction among the students and the instructor leaned more toward a typical online classroom; that is, communicating through computers instead of face-to-face (even when they were physically present in the same location). Yet, some face-to-face interaction was observed. For example, the students would seek clarification about unclear points or concepts directly (face-to-face communication) from their fellow students who were in the same computer lab. This type of communication was seen less between the students= and the instructor. There might have been a psychological barrier that the stud= ents (and perhaps the instructor as well) unconsciously imposed upon themselves.= The students and the instructor might have failed to seek alternatives and limi= ted themselves to thinking that because the class session was proceeding on the computer and everyone was sitting in front of a computer, all communication should be via the computer interface. As a result, they may have overlooked= the higher degree of social presence that was available to them and did not take advantage of it.
One of the advantages of the blended instructional del= ivery method over a complete online delivery method is the minimum number of technical skills required of the students. The physical meeting sites elimi= nate the demands on students who are unable to deal with technical issues, such = as installing necessary software, setting up headsets and cameras, calibrating audio and video settings in the program, as well as unexpected technical problems. An online course that utilizes audio/videoconferencing meeting mo= des requires that learners possess a certain degree of technical knowledge and an abilit= y to troubleshoot. The fact is that not every student is technologically capable. Most importantly, the focus of the class should be on learning the subject matter, rather than on training the learners how to use the technology. Therefore, the technology should be transparent enough so that the learners= can devote all their energy to learning the subject. The blended instructional delivery method provides the students with facilities equipped with ready-to-use technology and on site technical support staff. This way, the students do not have to deal with the hardware and software issues, and are able to concentrate on their learning.
An observation we had throughout the semester was that= the students turned off the video windows after only a few weeks of the class. = One interpretation for this phenomenon is the immaturity of the technology, whi= ch hindered the communication, and as a result, undermined the students’= desire for obtaining higher degrees of social presence. Even though each student’s Internet connection was at the speed of a T1 or DSL, the transmission of video was not smooth and sometimes slowed down the interact= ions in other modes of communication, such as audio or application sharing. The capability of technology noticeably decreased the students’ willingne= ss to use the video function during the class. Until this problem can be solve= d, synchronous online classes will still remain primarily based on text and au= dio communication. In terms of providing high degrees of social presence in onl= ine learning environments, there is still a great deal of room for improvement.=
The blended instructional delivery method appears to b= e a promising method that will provide students with an optimal learning environment under constraints that many institutions and students are facin= g. Building a learning community is not only important in traditional face-to-= face classroom settings, but also crucial for online learning environments since= the social presence is inherently low in these settings. The blended instruction delivery method is a method that takes the advantage of both face-to-face a= nd online classroom settings, and provides a viable solution to various dilemm= as. The intention we had in utilizing the blended instructional delivery method= was to seek the best possible medium for students’ needs, as well as the institution’s resource management needs, rather than to make a claim = for the superiority of blended instruction. This report is the result of a preliminary observation of the implementation of a blended instructional delivery method in graduate courses. More research is needed to systematica= lly evaluate the method and provide more insights for educators.
3. REFERENCES
[1.] =
Argyle,
M., and Dean, J. 1965. Eye Contact, Distance, and Affiliation. Sociometry
28(3):289--304.
[2.] Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. = H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(= 5), 554-571.
[3.] =
Lewis,
L., Snow, K., Farris, E., et al. 1999. Distance Education at Postsecondary
Education Institutions.
[4.] Meyen, E. Tangen, P., and Li= an, C. 1999. Developing Online Instruction: Partnership Between Instructor and Technical Developers. Journal of Special Education Technology 14(1):18--31.
[5.] Meyers, C., and Jones, T. B.=
1993.
Promoting Active Learning.
[6.] =
Short,
J. A. E., Williams, E., and Christie, B. 1976. The Social Psychology of
Telecommunications.
[7.] =
Stepich,
D. and Ertmer, P. 2003. Building Community as a Critical Element of On=
line
Course Design. Educational Technology 43(5):33--43.
[8.] =
Teaching
at an Internet Distance: The Pedagogy of Online Teaching and Learning. 1999.
Unpublished manuscript,
[9.] Tu, C. –H., and McIsaa= c, M. 2002. The Relationship of Social Presence and Interaction in Online Classes= . The American Journal of Distance Education 16(3):131--150.
[10.] Whiteman, J. A. 2002. Interpersonal Communication in Computer Mediated Learning. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 465 977.<= /p>
[11.] Wiener, M., and Mehrabian, =
A.
1968. Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communica=
tion.
Amon Milln=
er
MIT M=
edia Lab
millner@media.mit.edu
1. Introduction
This paper i= ntroduces the Hook-ups initiative. In this initiative, young people learn by designing and constructing “Hook-ups” - physical objects that can control games, animations, and other computer programs which they create. Hook-ups = can be inspired by traditional computer interfaces (e.g., joysticks) or are entirely new types of interfaces (e.g., a spaceship steering wheel). In creating Hook-ups, young people work with objects and materials that they h= ave a strong interest in exploring. Youth become designers capable of integrating virtual media with materials from the world around them. By engaging in Hook-ups design processes, learners gain confidence and motivat= ion to explore topics within areas such as interface design, programming, and physics.
This investigation draws primarily from research focus= ed on learning through design. Specifically, it addresses the integration of phys= ical and virtual design. There are four main ideas on which the Hook-ups initiat= ive is based: (1) design is a good context for learning; (2) learners become mo= re deeply engaged when they have personal connections to design materials; (3) design activities should take learners’ individual styles into accoun= t; and (4) supporting design-based learning in environments with less structure than traditional schools is challenging yet possible.
This paper begins with the relevant theory and work th= at guides Hook-ups’ development, followed by a description of the project’s design, which includes details of current Hook-ups materials and activities. Scenarios of Hook-ups being created are then offered. Diffe= rent approaches to introducing Hook-ups to youth are analyzed. The paper conclud= es by discussing the initiative’s future directions.
2. THEoretical Groundings: Learning Through Design
The constructionist theory of learning suggests that y= oung people learn best through the process of constructing artifacts [3]. Kafai’s Game Design Project is an example of a learning environment guided by this idea [2]. Kafai created an environment where fourth-grade students created video games to help younger children learn about fractions. Her game design tasks ranged from creating game packaging to designing user interfaces [2]. The Hook-ups initiative extends Kafai’s work into the domain of input device design. Additionally, the Hook-ups initiative focuse= s, beyond game design, on other contexts such as interactive art.
Unlike Kafai’s Game Design Project, Hook-ups activities do not start from a pre-defined subject matter. Hook-ups project subject matter is typically the result of free exploration. For instance, a learner can start a project by modeling the physical behavior of a familiar item in a simulation or game - buttons on a toy steering wheel can be conne= cted to a computer to control virtual racecar programs, for example. As learners progress through their projects, they explore concepts in physics, electron= ics, and programming in order to realize their interface design ideas.
2.1. Integrating Physical and Digital
Recent resea= rch initiatives have provided preliminary indications that integrating both physical and computational design can offer engaging educational experience= s to diverse sets of learners [1; 4]. Programmable Bricks, an initiative started at the MIT Media Lab, adds computation to physical objects that many people are familiar with: LEGO bricks. Programmable brick researchers belie= ve that young people learn powerful ideas through participating in engaging de= sign experiences both on and off the computer. Commercialized versions of programmable bricks are pocket-sized LEGO bricks (with tiny computers embed= ded) called “Mindstorms.” To operate Mindstorms, users create progra= ms and transfer them to a brick. An example program could activate motors to d= rive the wheels of a miniature car. The program could also read sensors to see if the car is near a wall – making activities like maze exploration possible.
Programmable bricks control physical objects. In contr= ast, Hook-ups control virtual objects. A Mindstorms powered car that is programm= ed to explore physical spaces has to be constrained by physical forces such as gravity whereas a virtual car does not. A person who is excited about learn= ing in the context of space exploration may have difficulty launching a Mindsto= rms creation into orbit. Through Hook-ups activities, they can design and creat= e a tangible control panel to maneuver an on-screen spaceship through a virtual universe.
3. DESIGNING HOOK-UPS
Hook-ups are user-created devices that influence the behavior of computer programs. They have one or more sensors that collect information from the world and send it to computer programs (that present t= he data to users as numbers). For example, a light sensor can continuously rep= ort the amount of light in a room. The user can write a program that adjusts the brightness of a digital image in response to the data received. Sensor inpu= t is captured via a Hook-ups interface board (HUB). This board connects sensors = to computers through the kind of wire one can find on discarded headphones. Hook-ups can be designed for a multitude of interface boards and software packages. The Hook-ups described in this paper interface with a graphics-ba= sed programming environment called Scratch [5] that already supports an early version of the HUB.
The primary creators of Hook-ups are 10--18 year old m=
embers
of community technology centers (CTCs). As
a starting point to creating Hook-ups, young people are encouraged to work =
with
objects or materials they like. Wilensky suggests that developing personali=
zed
connections to objects engages student thinking, feeling and learnin=
g -
not only about the object itself, but about other objects - and ultimately
facilitates insights about self by the learner [6].
Subsequent s=
ections
show examples of how the process of designing custom, tangible interfaces c=
an
help youth develop personal connections to a range of materials, use materi=
als
in unexpected ways, and become comfortable with expressing themselves with =
new
design tools. Hook-ups can include materials such as: discarded everyday it=
ems
(paper plates, cardboard boxes); simple electronic components; deconstructed
electronic toys; custom-made circuit boards; output from leading-edge
personal-fabrication tools, etc.
3.1. Hooking into a Community’s Diverse Interests
Hook-ups are introduced to communities that range in age, demographics, learning styles,= and interests. All learners approach design activities with a different = set of experiences and preferences. A challenge that Hook-ups will face is enga= ging youth who had previously been disinterested in (or frustrated by) design activities. To meet this challeng= e and engage diverse learners, the Hook-ups initiative introduces new design tool= s, provides support materials, and makes example projects available.
Hook-ups enable newcomers to initially explore the typ= e of design with which they feel most comfortable, begin designing, and eventual= ly try out other types of design. Ultimately, the objective is for participant= s to gain the ability to move fluidly back and forth between physical and virtual design as they desire. Young peop= le who have learned to program their own games may become interested in designing customized controllers using simple sensors (i.e., switches and sliders). Conversely, young people who have learned that objects around them have electronic components that can serve as sensors may become interested in programming their own interactive programs. Hook-ups research will focus on= choices made by youth, projects they construct, connections they establish with materials, and perceived increases in programming proficiency.
4. Introducing and DEVELOPING Hook-ups design activities
Hook-ups act=
ivities
at CTCs can be introduced in several ways in order to provide research
opportunities for comparison and contrast between various approaches. Hook-=
ups
are currently being introduced in two ways at local Boston CTCs (local Comp=
uter
Clubhouses and the
4.1. The Need for Flexibility in Introducing Design Activities
Hook-ups activities are designed for informal learning= environments that depend on the voluntary participation of youth. In such circumstances, incorporating their pre-existing interests and activities is especially important. The following passage, taken from my field notes, provides an example of a flexible approach to introducing Hook-ups that resulted in a learner using design tools and materials in new ways.
I started Scratch on my laptop= to gauge if onlookers would become interested in using it. I showed a sequence= of sample projects - some with Hook-ups - to the members who asked me what I w= as doing. A fellow mentor/researcher then sat with a group of 3 members that o= pted to learn Scratch programming. I took approximately 8 other members interest= ed in Hook-ups to a table that contained items I brought such as wire, scissor= s, and push-buttons. The youth then added to the table materials they found su= ch as water bottles, plastic bags and paper plates. After 20 minutes of group tinkering, a latecomer approached the table with a unique idea. He grabbed two wires and reques= ted the scissors. He did not cut the wires; instead he taped a wire to each han= dle. He explained that when a person was cutting, the wires would meet and trigg= er an explosion [on the screen]. Another member used Scratch’s image edi= tor to draw graphics depicting explosions. The visit concluded by my building an example program that tied together the scissor interface and the explosion animation.
The Hook-ups initiative will also explore the balance between structure and flexibility in informal learning environments. As sho= wn in the passage above, human support, basic materials, and project examples = are provided. Project examples are carefully selected based on their ability to demonstrate how multiple simple elements come together to make engaging pro= jects. Participants have the flexibility to use elements of provided materials in conjunction with elements they bring to the activities.
Simple Scratch program examples can quickly be deconst= ructed and rebuilt to show how basic programming concepts work. Some learners are = able to see an example rebuilt and begin manipulating programs right away. For others, designing a physical interface to a program makes the programming t= ask more approachable. For example, the following passage presents such an inst= ance of a learner overcoming a perceived inability to program. As a result of becoming deeply involved in the construction of a tangible interface, the learner found the motivation to become involved in the programming of a Scr= atch project.
Six 12-year-old participants attended a 2-day mini-vid= eo game design workshop. They decided to collaboratively create a game about violence and television. Each participant volunteered to lead one aspect of= the game’s design. No one volunteered to build the Scratch program to integrate all of the parts (hesitation is understandable given the complexi= ty of the task and the limited amount of time available). The workshop leaders gave the group an introduction to Scratch programming yet some members did = not catch on. One member named Jack was unable to understand the basic programm= ing concepts and began to lose interest. Jack was presented with a box full of scissors, tape, wire, and old toys and asked if he was interested in creati= ng a controller for the group’s game. With a small amount of adult assista= nce, Jack created a one-button remote control to flip past violent channels on a virtual TV. With a desire to program something that would respond to his re= mote control, Jack became motivated to program. He retained and reused concepts = in conditional programming to achieve his task. He even faced the challenge of programming the TV to loop back to channel 1 after reaching the highest channel.
5. future DIRECTIONS
The Hook-ups initiative is in its very early stages. F= uture Hook-ups research will establish = new activities that integrate multiple types of design. By doing so, a better understanding will be gained of how young people learn when they are engage= d in flexible design processes. The Hook-ups initiative will continue to investi= gate: (1) how input device design is a good context for learning; (2) how learners become engaged in physical and virtual design processes when connections to different design materials are established; (3) how design activities adapt to individuals’ learning styles; and (4) how the structure and flexibility of Hook-ups design activities contributes to youth learning ideas from areas such as programming, interface design, and physic= s.
6. REFERENCES
[1.] Eisenberg, M., Eisenberg, A., Hendrix, S.=
, et
al. 2003. As We May Print: New Directions in Output Devices and Computational
Crafts for Children. <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">
[2.]
Kafai, Y. B. 1995. Minds in Play:
Computer Game Design as a Context for Children's Learning.
[3.]
Papert, S. 1991. Situating Constructionism. In:
[4.]
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., et al. 1996. Programmable Bricks: Toy=
s to
Think With. IBM Systems Journal
35(3-4):443--452.
[5.]
Resnick, M., Kafai, Y., Maeda, J., et al. 2003. A Networked, Media-Rich
Programming Environment to Enhance Technological Fluency at After-School
Centers in Economically-Disadvantaged Communities. Proposal to the National
Science Foundation (project funded 2003-2007).
[6.]
Wilenksy, U. 1991. Abstract Meditations on the Concrete and Concrete
Implications for Mathematics Education. Constructionism. In:
Supporting and Changing Practi= ces of Nested and Overlapping Educational Communities
Daniel Suthers, Violet Harada, Joyce Yukawa, and Viil Lid=
Department of Information and Computer Sciences,
suthers@hawaii.edu= , vharada@hawaii.edu, yukawa@hawaii.edu, viil@hawaii.edu
1. INTRODUCTION
Applications of information technology to support syst= emic reform in public school systems have taken several forms. Instructional applications include attempts to more effectively convey information to students, to empower students' own agency in accessing information and constructing knowledge, and to aid teachers’ classroom management, le= sson preparation, and assessment. Technology has been proffered as a change agen= t in itself: teachers will need to change their practices in order to use technologies designed for doing authentic inquiry and communicating or coll= aborating with others [10]. Information technology can also support professional development through access to online courses, and enable participation in distributed communities of practice. The work reported in this paper has ta= ken this latter strategy. Because today’s school systems operate in an environment of constant change, professional development requires a paradigm shift from a scripted training approach to a more fluid approach that encourages the incorporation of networks, coalitions, and partnerships. The capacity to network with other professionals is essential to the notion of communities of practice. McLaughlin and Mitra argue that sustaining large-s= cale theory-based reform efforts “requires a community of practice to prov= ide support, deflect challenges from the broader environment, and furnish the feedback and encouragement essential to going deeper” [7]. Barab defi= nes a community that advances ongoing and open-ended professional development a= s a “persistent, sustained network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history and experiences focused on a common practice and/or mutual enterprise” [1]. These communities change the relationships among teachers, breaking the isolation= that most teachers have found so confining.
Over the past several years, Hawai`i Networked Learning
Communities (HNLC), a National Science Foundation Rural Systemic Initiative
(RSI), has been supporting communities of educators in
In the spring and early summer of 2003 (about 12 months after hnlc.org was first released), we undertook our first evaluation specifically targeted at determining levels of teacher use of our online community tools. This evaluation is summarized in Suthers, et al. [13]. At = the time of the evaluation, our work was focused on getting small teams of teac= hers to collaborate, online as well as face-to-face, in order to plan standards-based, assessment-driven and student-centered inquiry units. Over= all, respondents had positive attitudes about the use of technology in general f= or a range of purposes, but as of summer 2003 they had not made significant use = of hnlc.org outside of sponsored events, with the exceptions of school teams preparing for those events and the initiative of a few individuals. Focus groups indicated some differences in the expectations of developers and use= rs. The results of this study challenged us to rethink our efforts to use Inter= net technology in support of systemic reform. In this paper we summarize the mo= st important portion of our deliberations concerning the community and practices= to be supported.
2. WHAT COMMUNITY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED?
Although our ultimate goal is increased student performance and participation in SMT, we want to accomp= lish this in a sustainable manner, which requires that we change the practices of those directly responsible for student learning rather than working directly with students ourselves. Therefore we reaffirmed that we want to support the work of teachers. Our working assumption from the outset has been that if teachers experienced the use of technology in their learning they would bet= ter understand how to use it for their students’ learning. However, as discussed below, we found that we cannot neglect designing technology for u= se by students.
HNLC has been working with school teams formed for the purpose of representing each school to HNLC and developing an integrated un= it plan as a model of how education could be done in their school. These teams= may or may not be constituted of prior collaborators. An alternative approach i= s to identify existing communities within the schools rather than leaving team formation up to school administrators [6]. Regardless of how they are forme= d, school teams should enable educators of different disciplines or at differe= nt grade levels within a school to work with each other towards continuity in = the students’ learning experience across classes and grade levels.
We also recognize that relevant communities can extend beyond the schools. Teachers specializing in a given subject or grade level= may want to network with each other across schools, forming communities of practice, the second “knit” of a double-knit organization [14]. They may wish to discuss specific math and science projects being implemented on multiple campuses as well as applicat= ions for curriculum resources being used in various classrooms. There are also groups defined by administrative structures such as the HIDOE complexes (hi= gh schools and their primary and intermediate feeder schools). Collaboration within a complex could improve the educational experience from the students’ point of view if innovations at the primary and secondary levels were coordinated. Finally, we considered whether our HNLC colleagues within the HIDOE should be the primary targets of our technology support. T= he ATRB team members plan the HNLC professional development program and carry = it out in scheduled events, school visits, and online instruction. Although AT= RB staff suggested that we focus on teachers, we recognize the need to work closely with the ATRB staff to ensure that the affordances of our technolog= ies mesh well with their plans for professional development. For example, we fo= und that because participants will most likely try new tools and practices at face-to-face training sessions organized by ATRB, we need to design for transitions between face-to-face and online use.
![](3D"cbl_files/image011.gif")
Also
of interest for our systemic reform agenda is the statewide community of SMT
educators within HIDOE, and the even broader community of stakeholders and
interested parties that includes parents, employers, and representatives of
other federally funded programs that have an educational outreach component.
The expectations and resources of these stakeholders are critical for shapi=
ng
and sustaining the future of education.
![3D"Text](3D"cbl_files/image012.gif")
Our ef=
forts
would be diluted if we tried to support all of these communities at once, b=
ut
nor can we focus only on school teams and ignore their context. We now beli=
eve
that hnlc.org must selectively support nested
and overlapping communities of
practice [9; 14] that extend beyond the schools and into the general commun=
ity.
We need to focus on teachers as those primarily responsible for student
achievement, but not neglect the larger community context of education. Our
primary focus in the design of hnlc.org is now on both the school teams and=
on
inter-school collaborations (communities of practice) in which educators and
ATRB staff share ideas and advice (Figure 1). Our secondary focus remains on
the larger community that forms the environment of resources and expectatio=
ns
within which our primary communities grow. Our working hypothesis is that i=
t is
essential for the sustainabilit=
y of
systemic reform that we not only address the needs of the practitioners who=
se
work immediately impacts upon student performance, but also initiate change=
in
the broader community that places expectations on the school system as well=
as
provides the resources to meet those expectations.
Discussions in the Community-Based Learning Workshop h= eld at the 2004 International Conference on the Learning Sciences reinforced our v= iew of the importance of nested communities and provided us with some fresh ide= as about how we can support these communities. One way is through fostering a common identity and a culture of shared meaning and practices. A recent redesign of hnlc.org recognizes the importance of community awareness. Pers= onal profiles displaying each member’s community contributions serve to bu= ild their reputations within the community as well as facilitate finding other contributions by the same member [5]. Allowing the members to personalize t= heir online presence by sharing information about themselves creates opportuniti= es for finding others with similar interests or complementary skills, thus facilitating the forming of new collaborative connections and groups [4].
The concept of small group cognition helps clarify our= focus on teacher teams. Small groups are the unit that mediates between individual learning and community learning, and therefore are the appropriate unit of action for systemic reform [11]. Yet small groups do not exist in isolation: they form out of and are supported by communities. We are initiating a new effort to mobilize and support new members from the statewide community, wi= th the expectation that this effort will foster new small communities of inter= est and that they will leverage resources provided by the larger community. We intend to study the interaction between the larger community, small communi= ties and groups, and individual teachers in our target population to determine t= he effect of embedding in nested communities and how this is mediated by our technology.
3. WHAT PRACTICE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED?
Having clarified the overlapping and nested spheres of communities of practice that we intend to support, we are still faced with = the question, “What practice?” Should we design our system to meet practitioners’ immediate needs and working practices (as conventional= wisdom in human-computer system design suggests), even if that meant supporting the existing teacher-centered forms of instruction?
We would be neglecting the systemic reform’s obj= ective of changing practice if we mere= ly focused on supporting existing practice. Systemic reform requires that something sustainable change in the system beyond an immediate impact on this year’s cohort of students. Furthermore, systemic reform means change, and that may mean trying to get educators to do things other than that which they think they most need. We = need to change their practices as well as support them. The objective of this re= form is a reflective-action form of practice – akin to action research = 211; in which teachers use embedded assessment to examine the effects of their i= nstructional interventions and the learning opportunities they create for student performance, and adjust those interventions and seek new opportunities as needed to improve performance. If t= his were the prevalent practice of our user community, then the tools that they= need, and indeed demand, would be different than at present.
What role does technology play in driving the change process? Can we offer technology (integrated with professional development) that meets the demands of this imagined community of practice of the future, and thereby perturb the present activity system to change towards that futu= re? This strategy will not work if educators don’t use the tools, and they won’t use tools that don’t meet their present needs. Also, this approach presents a triple challenge: by asking teachers to (1) work collaboratively, (2) via online technology, and (3) to plan and engage in student-centered inquiry learning, we are asking them to do three things th= at most of them are not accustomed to doing. If teachers have not engaged in reflective discussion even in face-to-face settings, it is unrealistic to expect this behavior in an online environment [6]. Where do we begin?
Our hope is that the distinction between supporting and changing practice may be artificial or irrelevant, if the tools we offer are amenable to supporting both practices in teachers’ current zone of proximal development as well as more reflective practices of the future. Strategically, we need to build tools to support current practice, gain acc= eptance, and then build on this base to change the practice along with and through t= he tools. This process could be supported by technology serving as a collabora= tive workspace with functions to enable socialization and interpersonal connecti= on [2].
A related question is how teachers will learn to use
technology. We began under the assumption that educators could learn to tea=
ch
with technology by first learning to learn with technology. However, through
surveys and focus groups as well as informal experience we found that HNLC
educators tend to view technology as resources for use with their students,=
and
are more likely to be inspired by their students’ use of technology t=
han
vice-versa. Yet they also acknowledge that technology is an important resou=
rce
for their own professional development. Perhaps the resolution to this appa=
rent
tension between teacher-first versus student-first use is to shape professi=
onal
development so that participants use the tools in the way students would be
asked to use them in inquiry-based learning. They would thereby gain
simultaneous training in the practice of inquiry-based learning and the use=
of
technologies as specifically applied to the inquiry activities of themselve=
s and their students.
4. WHAT DO WE BUILD?
We have so far considered what we can do to support pr= esent and future practices of multiple communities and teams. A deeper problem ar= ises if many of these communities of practice do not already exist. Then the question becomes, “What do we build – the community, the practi= ce, or the tools?” Communities of practice need to be built from a complex array of factors and in a manner that is timely and unique to each group. A community design cannot simply be proffered to a group [3]. Kling and Courtright contend that it is easier to foster technology supported community development than to nurture technology initiated communities [6]. Communi= ties evolve within groups around their particular needs and for purposes that th= ey value. Program planners must face issues of sociability as well as usabilit= y in developing a design that links to and supports people’s social interactions [2; 8]. Fostering trusting and respectful relationships is paramount. This is the basis for community building, and, once established, each community of practice then directs the development, adoption, and use = of technology for its specific needs. The process combines both bottom-up and top-down efforts to answer the questions we pose here. When multiple, nested communities of practice are involved, our responsibilities for attentiveness and technological responsiveness are correspondingly increased and should be clearly prioritized.
5. CURRENT RESEARCH
Our continued research is organized around two major i= ssues: (1) technology-supported communities and systemic reform (as discussed abov= e), and (2) the affordances of technology as a mediating artifact in supporting these communities [13]. We raise the following questions to guide our investigation. (1) What strategies can encourage time-pressed, technology-hesitant teachers to use technology for their own learning and collaboration? Once technology has been adopted for collaboration, how do t= he new relationships and communities so formed influence classroom practices towards genuine inquiry? How are new relationships formed via technology or= via a mixture of face-to-face and online interactions? Does the embedding of sm= all groups within the context of a statewide online community lead to the forma= tion and enhancement of small group work? Do technology-mediated groups or communities change the operation of the organization in which they are embedded? (2) How is technology used not only as “communication channel” but also as a medium within which questions and problems are identified and shared solutions are negotiated? How can design of representational notations influence such collaborative inquiry? How can workspaces be adapted to users' needs?
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the numerous individuals who have contributed towards HNLC, including Vicki Kajioka (HNLC co-PI and ATRB director), Claudia Atta (HNLC interim project director), and Pat Donohue (former HNLC project director), and the other members of the ATRB and UH te= ams for their hard work during the period reported in this paper: Malia Chow, W= il Doane, Laura Girardeau, Bruce Harris, Kyle Shodai, Joshua Wingstrom, and Ry= an Yoshioka. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. 0100393. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions = or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
7. REFERENCES
[1.]
[2.] Barab, S.A, MaKinster, J.G.,= and Scheckler, R. 2003. Designing system dualities: characterizing a web-suppor= ted professional development community. The Information Society 19:237--256.
[3.] Fullan, M. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of
Educational Reform.
[4.] Girgensohn, A. and Lee, A. 2=
002.
Making web sites be places for social interaction. Proceedings of CSCW'02,
[5.] Kelly, S.U., Sung, C., and
Farnham, S. 2002. Designing for improved social responsibility, user partic=
ipation,
and content in on-Line communities. Proceedings
of CHI 2002,
[6.] Kling, R., and Courtright, C. 2003. Group behavior and learning in electronic forums: A sociotechnical approach. The Information Society <= /i>19:221--235.
[7.] McLaughlin, M.W., and Mitra,= D. 2001. Theory-based change and change-based theory: going deeper, going broa= der. Journal of Educational Change 1:2--24.
[8.] Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usabilit=
y and
Supporting Sociability.
[9.] Resnick, L.B. and Hall, M. W.
1998. Learning organizations for sustainable educational reform. Daedalus, Journal of the
[10.] Soloway, E. 1996. Teachers = are the key. Communications of the ACM<= /i> 39(6):11--14
[11.] Stahl, G. (in press). Group Cognition: Computer Support for
Collaborative
[12.] Suthers, D. (in press).
Technology affordances for intersubjective learning, and how they may be
exploited. In: R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse, and H. Spada (Eds.). Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication
– and how they May be Overcome.
[13.] Suthers, D., Harada, V., Do=
ane,
W., et al. 2004. Technology-supported systemic reform: an initial evaluation
and reassessment. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences
[14.] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., =
and
Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating Commun=
ities
of Practice.
<= ![if !supportFootnotes]>[1] This paper is excerpted from (Stahl, in press)<= !--[if supportFields]>, where issues of group cognition are considered at length [4].
[6] A slogan of a local pressure group emphasizes this point clearly by proclai= ming “Vielfalt Altstadt” meaning ‘diversity in the old town ce= nter.’
[7] Hauptschulabschluss is the German equivalent to the certificate of completi= on of compulsory basic secondary schooling.
[8] We follow Dersch’s de=
finition
of development aid:
Extension within the framework of
development has the function of supporting culturally traditional (indigeno=
us)
people as they move towards modernisation. The person-centred extension foc=
uses
on the personal autonomy of the client with the objective of teaching the
clients to become responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions, =
and
to take an active part in their changing world [2].