Theme and goals

This workshop compares and seeks to synthesize different design approaches for exploring and promoting innovative educational practices supported by collaborative technologies. Bringing the design process to the forefront to support research and the realization of products for CSCL can help to balance the different needs of researchers and practitioners. The goal of the workshop is to examine different collaborative inquiry-learning based projects to determine what key themes can be further developed to address the use of design to improve research and implementation. While science inquiry is the focus of these three approaches, the comparative and synthesis activities should be of use for workshop participants concerned with synthesizing multiple design approaches for other CSCL domains as well, such as new literacies.

Theoretical background and relevance to field and conference

Nearly 20 years ago, it was argued that the limitations of computer use for education in the coming decades would likely be less a result of technological limitations than a result of limited human imagination and the constraints of old habits and social structures (Kaput, 1992). These two latest behaviors are still observable in many of today’s classrooms and impact the research, design, evaluation, and assessment in the CSCL community (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2010). Vatrupu and colleagues (2008) have argued that usability, sociability, and learnability can provide a design framework for CSCL. Dillenbourg and Jermann (2010) position orchestration as the key design implication for making CSCL “work well” for teachers. These different factors of usability, sociability, learnability, and the notion of “working well” can be considered design problems. These problems can be considered to be “ill defined” or “wicked” and they do not map well to rigors of science (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Design-based research (DBR) for education relies on cycles of prototyping and theory building (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; DiSessa & Cobb, 2004) to generate theoretical knowledge and educational innovations such as products and services for classrooms and beyond. DBR attempts to bridge research outcomes and the social factors for innovative educational uses. It can be argued that an expanded approach is needed that can address the design problems of making CSCL “work well” that supports research requirements while keeping in mind the users. Therefore, different strategies are needed to explore and promote innovative educational practices supported by collaborative technologies, and this workshop will argue that design can be a catalyst for change.

The workshop brings together stakeholders of three prominent perspectives on inquiry learning: Personal Inquiry, Mobile Collaboratories and Emerging Learning Objects. The case studies are drawn from the following three projects, but not limited to: Personal Inquiry (PI), Learning Ecology with Technologies from Science for Global Outcomes (LETS GO), and Science Created by You (SCY) along with the participants’ perspectives. The goal of the workshop is to examine the design challenges of putting these and other perspectives into practice in different educational settings. Further details on the three science perspectives are presented below.

1. Personal Inquiry: Learning Across Contexts

PI explores how to make the processes of evidence-based scientific inquiry personally relevant and readily accessible to young people (aged 11-15 years). It also aims to support the continuity of science learning between classrooms and non-formal settings. Informed by a series of inquiry projects with schools, we developed nQuire, a software system to support inquiry learning across a range of learning contexts and across devices including personal mobile technologies and shared classroom displays (Anastopoulou et al., 2008). nQuire, utilizes scripts to generate the interface, tools and navigation of the inquiry. Scripts are computer programs that guide and support the learners through an inquiry learning process by providing them with a set of structured activities, visualizations of data, and means of communication. An authoring component of the toolkit enables a teacher or educational designer to select, author and modify the scripts and to monitor and guide the student activity (Scanlon et al., submitted). The implementation of inquiry learning in the classroom, in the home and beyond has informed the design of the technology and the inquiry activities. Furthermore, multiple participatory design activities (e.g. Anastopoulou et al, 2009) have ensured that learners have the opportunity to investigate issues that are personally relevant to themselves and their surroundings.

2. LETS GO: Mobile Collaboratories

LETS GO frames its vision of “open inquiry” as the opportunity to catalyze and sustain global learning using mobile science collaboratories that provide open software tools and resources, and online participation frameworks for learner project collaboration, mobile media and data capture, analysis, reflection and publishing of inquiries (Lotan, 2003; Pea & Maldonado, 2006). We are integrating geo-location sensing, multimedia communication, information visualization and Web 2.0 mashup technologies to create these science learning collaboratories using interdisciplinary research teams. This rich type of technological environment provides an experimental arena for learning about complex topics in science through the process of exploring natural phenomena—as students use sensors and software tools for conducting systematic and collaborative investigations can provide vital opportunities for learning to occur (Novak & Gleason, 2001).

3. SCY: Emerging Learning Objects

Science Created by You (SCY) is a project on learning in science and technology domains. SCY uses a pedagogical approach that centers on products, called “emerging learning objects” (ELOs), that are created by students. Students work individually and collaboratively in SCY-Lab (the general SCY learning environment) on “missions” that are guided by socio-scientific questions (for example “How can we design a CO2-friendly house?”). Fulfilling SCY missions requires a combination of knowledge from different content areas (e.g., physics, mathematics, biology, as well as social sciences). While on a SCY mission, students perform several types of learning activities that can be characterized as productive processes (experiment, game, share, explain, design, etc.), they encounter multiple resources, collaborate with varying coalitions of peers, and use changing constellations of tools and scaffolds. The configuration of SCY-Lab is adaptive to the actual learning situation and may provide advice to students on appropriate learning activities, resources, tools and scaffolds, or peer students who can support the learning process. The SCY project aims at students between 12-18 years old. In the course of the project, a total of four SCY-missions will be developed, of which three are currently available.

Design Process and Tools

The intention of using different design processes is to provide discursive tools for researchers to tackle the challenges of designing collaborative inquiry-learning applications. These design tools draw inspiration from diverse design processes such as user toolkits of innovation (von Hippel, 2001), Reciprocal Research & Design (Alexander et al., 2010), and other user and learner centered design processes (Norman, 2002, Luchini et al., 2004). More design inspired tools such as IDEO’s Method Cards (Myerson, 2001) and Lockton and colleagues’ (2010) Design with Intent toolkit will be explored. Additionally, challenges about managing both the research and product design process both from participatory approaches of involving stakeholders and the support of innovation will be raised. The importance of discussing the role of design in the development of new technologies and activities to support learning requires a shift of thinking away from engineering solutions, towards ways to address the social challenges raised by (Kaput, 1992). Krippendorff (2006) argues for a shift in design from the preoccupation of appearance and surfaces of tangible products to design material and social artifacts that can make sense to users and their communities. Designing collaborative inquiry-learning applications need to be seen parallel to supporting the learners’ and teachers’ needs as active participants in creating and owning educational artifacts rather than being restricted to instruction and consumption of existing knowledge (Fischer & Ostwald 2005; Jenkins et al., 2009).

Expected outcomes and contributions

By bringing different design tools discussions to the forefront to investigate the different cases, the workshop aims to provide to refine and expand processes and concepts that can be used to support the design and orchestration of CSCL with a focus on inquiry-based learning. Additionally, the workshop aims to promote the value of considering how design can be better utilized for research.

References

Alexander, A., Blair, K. P., Goldman, S., Jimenez, O., Nakaue, M., Pea, R. and Russell, A. (2010), Go Math! How Research Anchors New Mobile Learning Environments, in 2010 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education, IEEE, pp. 57–64.

S.Anastopoulou, L.J.Kerawalla, K.Littleton and the PI project team (2009). Facilitating the expression of learner voices in the participatory design of technology to support inquiry learning. Poster presented at CAL 2009 – Learning in Digital Worlds, 23-25 March 2009 Brighton, UK

Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Wright, M., Martin, H., Ainsworth, S., Benford, S., Crook, C., Greenhalgh, C., & O’Malley, C. (2008). Learning 21st century science in context with mobile technologies. In J. Traxler, B. Riordan & C. Dennett (Eds.), Proceedings of the mLearn 2008 Conference: The bridge from text to context, Wolverhampton, UK: University of Wolverhampton, pp. 12-19.

de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W.R., Giemza, A., Girault, I., Hoppe, U., Kindermann, J., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A.W., Vold, V., Weinberger, A., Weinbrenner, S., Wichmann, A. Anjewierden, A., Bodin, M., Bollen, L. d´Ham, C., Dolonen, J., Engler, J., Geraedts, C., Grosskreutz, H., Hovardas, T., Julien, R., Lechner, J., Ludvigsen, S., Matteman, Y., Meistadt, Ø., Næss, B., Ney, M., Pedaste, M., Perritano, A., Rinket, M., von Schlanbusch, H., Sarapuu, T., Schulz, F., Sikken, J., Slotta, J., Toussaint, J., Verkade, A., Wajeman, C., Wasson, B., Zacharia, Z.C., & van der Zanden, M. (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: the SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 909-921.

Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (forthcoming). Technology for Classroom Orchestration. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education (pp. 1-20). Springer-Verlag.

DiSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Edelson, D. C. (2002). What We Learn When Design Research: We Engage in Design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.

Fischer, G. and Ostwald, J. (2005), Barriers and Biases in Computer- Mediated Knowledge Communication, in R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse and H. Spada, eds, in Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication, Vol. 5 of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 213–242.

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K. and Robison, A. J. (2009), Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation reports on digital media and learning.

Hoppe, H.U. (2007). Integrating learning processes across boundaries of media, time and group Scale. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2, 31-49

Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York, New York, USA: MacMillan Publishing.

Krippendorff, K. (2006), The semantic turn: a new foundation for design, CRC Press.

Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N. A. (2010), Design with Intent – 101 patterns for influencing behaviour through design, Equifine, Windsor, Berkshire, UK.

Lotan, R. (2003). Group-worthy tasks. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 72-75.

Luchini, K., Quintana, C. and Soloway, E. (2004), Design guidelines for learner-centered handheld tools, in CHI’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems’ ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 135–142.

Myerson, J. (2001), Ideo: masters of innovation, Lawrence King Publishers, London.

Norman, D. A. (2002), The design of everyday things, Basic Books, New York.

Novak, A.M., & Gleason, C.I. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R. F. Tinker & J. S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable Technologies: Science Learning in Context. New York: Kluwer.

Pea, R., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 427 – 442. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Springer.

Scanlon, E., Kerawalla, L. et al The challenge of supporting personal inquiry learning across contexts, In Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference, Aarlborg, May, 2010

Scanlon E., Anastopoulou S., Kerawalla L., Mulholland P. (submitted). Scripting personal inquiry: using technology to represent and support students’ understanding of personal inquiry across contexts. Manuscript submitted in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

Vatrapu, R., Suthers, D., & Medina, R. (2008). Usability, Sociability, and Learnability: A CSCL Design Evaluation Framework. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2008).

von Hippel, E. (2001), Perspective: User toolkits for innovation, in Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(4), 247–257.

Weinbrenner, S., Giemza, A. & Hoppe, H.U (2007). Engineering heterogeneous distributed learning environ¬ments using TupleSpaces as an architectural platform. Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 434-436). Los Alamitos, USA: IEEE Computer Society.

Acknowledgments

The Wallenberg Global Learning Network (WGLN) supports the LETS GO project. The Personal Inquiry project was supported by the UK ESRC and EPSRC research councils. The SCY project is funded by the European Community under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) theme of the 7th Framework Programme for R&D. This document does not represent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content.