Designing for interaction

At present, the design of computer-supported group-based learning (CS)GBL) is often based on subjective decisions regarding tasks, pedagogy and technology, or concepts such as ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘collaborative learning’. Critical review reveals these concepts as insufficiently substantial to serve as a basis for (CS)GBL design. Furthermore, the relationship between outcome and group interaction is rarely specified a priori. Thus, there is a need for a more systematic approach to designing (CS)GBL that focuses on the elicitation of expected interaction processes. A framework for such a process-oriented methodology is proposed. Critical elements that affect interaction are identified: learning objectives, task-type, level of pre-structuring, group size and computer support. The proposed process-oriented method aims to stimulate designers to adopt a more systematic approach to (CS)GBL design according to the interaction expected, while paying attention to critical elements that affect interaction. This approach may bridge the gap between observed quality of interaction and learning outcomes and foster (CS)GBL design that focuses on the heart of the matter: interaction

Designing electronic collaborative learning environments

Electronic collaborative learning environments for learning and working are in vogue. Designers design them according to their own constructivist interpretations of what collaborative learning is and what it should achieve. Educators employ them with different educational approaches and in diverse situations to achieve different ends. Students use them, sometimes very enthusiastically, but often in a perfunctory way. Finally, researchers study them and—as is usually the case when apples and oranges are compared—find no conclusive evidence as to whether or not they work, where they do or do not work, when they do or do not work and, most importantly, why, they do or do not work. This contribution presents an affordance framework for such collaborative learning environments; an interaction design procedure for designing, developing, and implementing them; and an educational affordance approach to the use of tasks in those environments. It also presents the results of three projects dealing with these three issues

Content analysis: What are they talking about?

Quantitative content analysis is increasingly used to surpass surface level analyses in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (e.g., counting messages), but critical reflection on accepted practice has generally not been reported. A review of CSCL conference proceedings revealed a general vagueness in definitions of units of analysis. In general, arguments for choosing a unit were lacking and decisions made while developing the content analysis procedures were not made explicit. In this article, it will be illustrated that the currently accepted practices concerning the ‘unit of meaning’ are not generally applicable to quantitative content analysis of electronic communication. Such analysis is affected by ‘unit boundary overlap’ and contextual constraints having to do with the technology used. The analysis of e-mail communication required a different unit of analysis and segmentation procedure. This procedure proved to be reliable, and the subsequent coding of these units for quantitative analysis yielded satisfactory reliabilities. These findings have implications and recommendations for current content analysis practice in CSCL research

Planning Collaborative Learning in Virtual Environments. La planificación del aprendizaje colaborativo en entornos virtuales

Collaborative learning has a strong presence in technologysupported education and, as a result, practices being developed in the form of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) are more and more common. Planning seems to be one of the critical issues when elaborating CSCL proposals, which necessarily take into account technological resources, methodology and group configuration as a means to boost exchange and learning in the community. The purpose of this study is to analyze the relevance of the CSCL planning phase and weigh up the significance of its key design components as well as examining group agreement typology and its usefulness in team building and performance. To do so, research was carried out using a nonexperimental quantitative methodology consisting of a questionnaire answered by 106 undergraduate students from 5 different CSCLbased subjects. Results prove the usefulness of the planning components and the drafting of group agreements and their influence on group building and interaction. In order to ensure the quality of learning, it is essential to plan CSCL initiatives properly and understand that organizational, pedagogical and technological decisions should converge around a single goal which is to sustain the cognitive and social aspects that configure individual and group learning

A department of methodology can coordinate transdisciplinary sport science support

In the current sporting landscape, it is not uncommon for professional sport teams and organizations to employ multidisciplinary sport science support teams. In these teams and organizations, a “head of performance” may manage a number of sub-discipline specialists with the aim of enhancing athlete performance. Despite the best intentions of multidisciplinary sport science support teams, difficulties associated with integrating sub-disciplines to enhance performance preparation have become apparent. It has been suggested that the problem of integration is embedded in the traditional reductionist method of applied sport science, leading to the eagerness of individual specialists to quantify progress in isolated components. This can lead to “silo” working and decontextualized learning environments that can hinder athlete preparation. To address this challenge, we suggest that ecological dynamics is one theoretical framework that can inform common principles and language to guide the integration of sport science sub-disciplines in a Department of Methodology. The aim of a Department of Methodology would be for group members to work within a unified conceptual framework to (1) coordinate activity through shared principles and language, (2) communicate coherent ideas, and (3) collaboratively design practice landscapes rich in information (i.e., visual, acoustic, proprioceptive and haptic) and guide emergence of multi-dimensional behaviors in athlete performance

A Service based Development Environment on Web 2.0 Platforms

Governments are investing on the IT adoption and promoting the socalled e-economies as a way to improve competitive advantages. One of the main government’s actions is to provide internet access to the most part of the population, people and organisations. Internet provides the required support for connecting organizations, people and geographically distributed developments teams. Software developments are tightly related to the availability of tools and platforms needed for products developments. Internet is becoming the most widely used platform. Software forges such as SourceForge provide an integrated tools environment gathering a set of tools that are suited for each development with a low cost. In this paper we propose an innovating approach based on Web2.0, services and a method engineering approach for software developments. This approach represents one of the possible usages of the internet of the future

Scoping a vision for formative e-assessment: a project report for JISC

Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning. If the relationship between teaching and learning were causal, i. e. if students always mastered the intended learning outcomes of a particular sequence of instruction, assessment would be superfluous. Experience and research suggest this is not the case: what is learnt can often be quite different from what is taught. Formative assessment is motivated by a concern with the elicitation of relevant information about student understanding and / or achievement, its interpretation and an exploration of how it can lead to actions that result in better learning. In the context of a policy drive towards technology-enhanced approaches to teaching and learning, the question of the role of digital technologies is key and it is the latter on which this project particularly focuses. The project and its deliverables have been informed by recent and relevant literature, in particular recent work by Black andIn this work, they put forward a framework which suggests that assessment for learning their term for formative assessment can be conceptualised as consisting of a number of aspects and five keystrategies. The key aspects revolve around the where the learner is going, where the learner is right now and how she can get there and examines the role played by the teacher, peers and the learner. Language: English Keywords: assessments, case studies, design patterns, e-assessmen

Rich environments for active learning in action: Problem‐based learning

Rich Environments for Active Learning (REALs) are comprehensive instructional systems that are consistent with constructivist theories. They promote study and investigation within authentic contexts; encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decision making and intentional learning; cultivate collaboration among students and teachers; utilize dynamic, interdisciplinary, generative learning activities that promote higher‐order thinking processes to help students develop rich and complex knowledge structures; and assess student progress in content and learning‐to‐learn within authentic contexts using realistic tasks and performances. Problem‐Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional methodology that can be used to create REALs. PBL's student‐centred approach engages students in a continuous collaborative process of building and reshaping understanding as a natural consequence of their experiences and interactions within learning environments that authentically reflect the world around them. In this way, PBL and REALs are a response to teacher‐centred educational practices that promote the development of inert knowledge, such as conventional teacher‐to‐student knowledge dissemination activities. In this article, we compare existing assumptions underlying teacher‐directed educational practice with new assumptions that promote problem solving and higher‐level thinking by putting students at the centre of learning activities. We also examine the theoretical foundation that supports these new assumptions and the need for REALs. Finally, we describe each REAL characteristic and provide supporting examples of REALs in action using PB

Managing evolution and change in web-based teaching and learning environments

The state of the art in information technology and educational technologies is evolving constantly. Courses taught are subject to constant change from organisational and subject-specific reasons. Evolution and change affect educators and developers of computer-based teaching and learning environments alike – both often being unprepared to respond effectively. A large number of educational systems are designed and developed without change and evolution in mind. We will present our approach to the design and maintenance of these systems in rapidly evolving environments and illustrate the consequences of evolution and change for these systems and for the educators and developers responsible for their implementation and deployment. We discuss various factors of change, illustrated by a Web-based virtual course, with the objective of raising an awareness of this issue of evolution and change in computer-supported teaching and learning environments. This discussion leads towards the establishment of a development and management framework for teaching and learning systems