THE PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN OF TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

1. THE PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN OF TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING Minna Lakkala Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building, University of Helsinkihttp://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning Minna.Lakkala@helsinki.fi Fe-ConE Workshop October 11th, 2007

2. The opinions of what characterises ”advanced” pedagogical practices are rather similar in current educational literature • For example: collaborative learning, PBL, learning by design, knowledge building, progressive inquiry … • Typical is that students work in teams; are solving open-ended authentic problems; use various knowledge sources; and create new knowledge and concrete products as a result of the working process. • Students’ activities, outcomes and learning results are emergent and not clearly predictable. • Teacher’s role is to act as an organizer, guide and expert model. • Educational content materials are a useful element in such practices, toghether with other resources, but not the main source of knowledge or director of the process.

3. Can collaborative learning be designed? • Classic models of instructional design are not very applicable for designing educational practices relying on collaborative learning (Häkkinen 2002; Strijbos et al. 2001): • They mainly concentrate on the learning outcomes of individual students; • They are commonly based on detailed pre-structuring of content and strict sequencing of activities; • They aim at creating a learning environment that supports the acquisition of a specific content or skill.

4. Indirect design • The pedagogical design of collaborative learning should be seen more as providing basic supporting structures that establish the elementary preconditions for the inquiry culture to emerge. • The design does not explicitly determine the modes of action or learning results, but offers possibilities and affordances for the desirable activity. • Like ”indirect design” of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Jones et al. 2006). --> Designing pedagogical infrastructures for collaboarative practices (Sfard 2000, Bielaczyc 2001, Paavola et al. 2002, Lipponen & Lallimo 2004, Lakkala et al. 2005, Muukkonen et al. in press).

5. Cognitive How to explicitly support and scaffold activity?Providing models, templates and conceptual tools; promoting metacognitive reflection; scaffolding embedded in tools and technology. Epistemological Why, how and by whom knowledge is produced? Ways of operating with knowledge; nature of knowledge sources used; participants’ and content materials’ role while creating and sharing knowledge. How collaboration is organized and supported?Explicit arrangements to advance collaboration; social interaction and working practices; sharing of the process and outcomes. Social What kind of technology and tools are in use?Providing of technology and technical advice; the appropriateness of tools for the desired activity; organizing the use of technology. Technical Pedagogical infrastructures (Lakkala et al. 2007)

6. Types of digital learning materials • Computer-aided instructinal/learning programs (CAI, CAL) • Originally based on programmed learning and mechanical drills. • Later also more open-ended programs based on constructivist conceptions of learning. • Distributed in CDs and used in classrooms. • Tutorials and full courses • One large material including everything: learning content, process structure, guidelines and tasks. • Distributed through the Web and mainly used for self-study in secondary/higher education and work places. • Such materials have turned out not to be very useful because of their inflexibility in content, process and audience.

7. An alternative: Learning Object approach • Digital learning resources shared and accessed via Internet, and reused in multiple learning contexts. • Designed especially for reuse, interoperability and flexibility. • Can be content materials or tools. • Can be used by a teacher, a student or a community. • The pedagogy is not in the content material itself, but in the learning environment constructed by the teacher. • LOs can have pedagogical “affordances” that promote certain kind of learning better than other.

8. Pedagogical “affordances” of LOs- e.g. pedagogical metadata categories in CELEBRATE • Assessment (Exams and tests) • Drill and practice (Simple exercises and games) • Information resource (Collections and databases in various knowledge modes: picture, text, video etc.) • Glossary (Dictionaries and vocabularies) • Guide (Manuals and tutorials) • Exploration (Simulations and experiments) • Open activity (Open questions and creative exercises) • Tool (Editors and other kind of programs for producing something) CELEBRATE, http://celebrate.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/index_celebrate.cfm

9. Evaluating content materials through the framework of pedagogical infrastructures? • Technical infrastructure: • Accessible by basic web programs • Usable in various technical environments without problems • Technically easy to use; interface design • ? • Social infrastructure • Promotes collaborative activities in task assignments • Allows joint use, co-editing or sharing of knowledge • Supports communication • ?

10. Evaluating content materials through the framework of pedagogical infrastructures? • Epistemological infrastructure • Problematized knowledge and questioning • Authentic, contextual and complex knowledge • Different perspectives and competing theories • Allows combining, adding, and revising knowledge • ? • Cognitive infrastructure • Conceptual tools, models and templates for effective practices • Situated guidance • Promotion of self-reflection and intentional learning by explicit guidelines and task assignments • ?

11. References (1) • Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: the challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings and K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (106-114). Maastricht: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.http://www.ll.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/15.doc • Häkkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology 33(4): 461-469. • Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers' pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education, 45(3), 337-356. http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/material/LakkalaLallimoHakkarainen2005.pdf

12. References (2) • Lipponen, L., & Lallimo, J. (2004). From collaborative technology to collaborative use of technology: Designing learning oriented infrastructures. Educational Media International 41(2): 111-116. • Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (in press). Promoting knowledge creation and object-oriented inquiry in university courses. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning in social practices. EARLI series: Advances in Learning. Pergamon. • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: a comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/texts/paavola_et_al_2002.pdf • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and on the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27(2): 4-13.