Moi drodzy, już niedługo już za momencik odbędzie się PLE konferencja #PLE_BCN w Barcelonie (8-9 lipca), którą przygotowujemy już od dawna (od dobrych 7 miesięcy). Właśnie dopinam wszystko do końca – przygotowywuję newsletter, prezentację na pecha kucha no i na warsztaty, które poprowadzę wraz z Cristina Costa (UK), Wolfgang Reinhardt (DE) i George Couros (CA) na temat definicji konceptu osobistych środowisk uczenia się. Tutaj możecie zobaczyć początkową kolekcję definicji. Warsztaty te będą miały formę „collaborative mind mapping“, czyli wspólne tworzenie mapy myśli w grupie realne i wirtualnej. W tym celu będziemy posługiwać się programem mindmeister, który daje bardzo wiele możliwści wspólnego tworzenia map myśli w tym samym czasie i asynchronicznie. Zarówno uczestnicy konferencji, jak i wszystkie inne osoby, które mają dostęp do Internetu i konto w minmeister bedą mogły uczestniczyć w tych warsztatach! Także zapraszam Was wszystkich serdecznie do brania udziału i tworzenia wspólnej mapy myśli! Warsztaty te odbędą sie w piątek, 9 lipca 15:45 do 17:00. We wtorek podam na tej stronie linka do początkowej mapy myśli i hasło do zalogowania się w piątek … ciąg dalszy nastąpi …

Part two of my new paper on Personal Learning environments, focusing on context, and written for the PLE2010 conference in Barcelona next week.

How can the idea of context help us in designing work based Personal Learning Environments? First, given the varied definitions, it might be apposite to explain what we mean by a PLE. PLEs can be seen as the spaces in which people interact and communicate and whose ultimate result is learning and the development of collective know-how. In terms of technology, PLEs are made-up of a collection of loosely coupled tools, including Web 2.0 technologies, used for working, learning, reflection and collaboration with others.

As such, PLEs offer some solutions to the issue of the fluid and relational nature of context. PLEs, unlike traditional educational technology are mobile, flexible and not context dependent. They can move from one domain to another and make connections between them. Secondly PLEs can support and facilitate a greater variety of relationships than traditional educational media. These include relationships within and between networks and communities of practice and support for collaborative working. PLEs shift the axis of control from the teacher to the learners and thus alter balance of power within learning discourses. And, perhaps critically, PLEs support a greater range of learning discourses than traditional educational technology.

PLEs are able to link knowledge assets with people, communities and informal knowledge (Agostini et al, 2003) and support the development of social networks for learning (Fischer, 1995). Razavi and Iverson (2006) suggest integrating weblogs, ePortfolios, and social networking functionality both for enhanced e-learning and knowledge management, and for developing communities of practice. A PLE can use social software for informal learning which is learner driven, problem-based and motivated by interest – not as a process triggered by a single learning provider, but as a continuing activity.

So far we have stressed the utility of PLEs in being flexible and adaptable to different contexts. In a work based context, the ‘Learning in Process’ project (Schmidt, 2005) and the APOSDLE project (Lindstaedt, and Mayer, 2006) have attempted to develop embedded, or work-integrated, learning support where learning opportunities (learning objects, documents, checklists and also colleagues) are recommended based on a virtual understanding of the learner’s context.

However, while these development activities acknowledge the importance of collaboration, community engagement and of embedding learning into working and living processes, they have not so far addressed the linkage of individual learning processes and the further development of both individual and collective understanding as the knowledge and learning processes (Attwell. Barnes, Bimrose and Brown, 2008). In order to achieve that transition (to what we term a ‘community of innovation’), processes of reflection and formative assessment have a critical role to play.

Personal Learning Environments are by definition individual. However it is possible to provide tools and services to support individuals in developing their own environment. In looking at the needs of careers guidance advisors for learning Attwell, Barnes, Bimrose and Brown, (2008) say a PLE should be based on a set of tools to allow personal access to resources from multiple sources, and to support knowledge creation and communication. Based on an scoping of knowledge development needs, an initial list of possible functions for a PLE have been suggested, including: access/search for information and knowledge; aggregate and scaffold by combining information and knowledge; manipulate, rearrange and repurpose knowledge artefacts; analyse information to develop knowledge; reflect, question, challenge, seek clarification, form and defend opinions; present ideas, learning and knowledge in different ways and for different purposes; represent the underpinning knowledge structures of different artefacts and support the dynamic re-rendering of such structures; share by supporting individuals in their learning and knowledge; networking by creating a collaborative learning environment.

People tagging

However, rather than seeking to build a monolithic application which can meet all these needs, a better approach may be to seek to develop tools and services which can meet learning needs related to particular aspects of such needs. And in developing such a tool, it is useful to reflect on the different aspects of context involved in the potential use of such tools.  The European Commission supported Mature project is seeking to research and develop Personal Learning and Maturing Environments and Organisation Learning and Maturing Environments to support knowledge development and ‘maturing’ in organisations. The project has developed a number of use cases and demonstrators, following a participatory design process and aiming at supporting learning in context for careers guidance advisors.

One such demonstrator is a ‘people tagging’ application (Braun, Kunzmann and Schmidt, 2010). According to the project report “Knowing-who is an essential element for efficient knowledge maturing processes, e.g. for finding the right person to talk to. Take the scenario of where a novice Personal Adviser (P.A.) needs to respond to a client query. The P.A. does not feel sufficiently confident to respond adequately, so needs to contact a colleague who is more knowledgeable, for support. The key problems would be:

• How does the P.A. find the right person to contact
• How can the P.A. find people inside, and even outside, the employing organisation?
• How can colleagues who might be able to support the P.A. be identified and contacted quickly and efficiently?

Typically, employee directories, which simply list staff and their areas of expertise, are insufficient. One reason is that information contained in the directories is outdated; or it is not described in an appropriate manner; or it focuses too much on ‘experts’; and they often do not include external contacts (Schmidt & Kunzmann 2007).

Also Human Resource Development needs to have sufficient information about the needs and current capabilities of current employees to make the right decisions. In service delivery contexts that must be responsive to the changing needs of clients, like Connexions services, it is necessary to establish precisely what additional skills and competencies are required to keep up with new developments. The people tagging tool would provide a clear indication of:

• What type of expertise is needed?
• How much of the requisite expertise already exists within the organisation?”

At a technical level the demonstrator includes:

• A bookmarking widget for annotating persons, which can be invoked as a bookmarklet
• A browsing component for navigating annotated people based on the vocabulary
• An employee list and profile visualization of annotated people
• A search component for searching for people
• A collaborative real-time editor of the shared vocabulary that allows for consolidating tags and introducing hierarchical relationships
• An analysis component for displaying trends based on search and tagging behaviour.

The application seeks to meet the challenge of aligning the maturing of ontological knowledge with the development of the knowledge about people in the organization (and possibly beyond).

Early evaluation results suggest that people tagging is accepted by employees in general, and that they view it as beneficial on average. The evaluation “has also revealed that we have to be careful when designing such a people tagging system and need to consider affective barriers, the organizational context, and other motivational aspects so that it can become successful and sustainable. Therefore we need to develop a design framework (and respective technical enablement) for people tagging systems as socio-technical systems that covers aspects like control, transparency, scope etc. This design framework needs to be backed by a flexible implementation.”

Technology Enhanced Boundary Objects

A further approach to supporting Personal Learning environments for careers guidance professional is based on the development of Technology Enhanced Boundary Objects (TEBOs). Mazzoni and Gaffuri (2009) consider that PLEs as such may be seen as boundary objects in acting to support transitions within a Zone of Proximal Development between knowledge acquired in formal educational contexts and knowledge required for performance or practice within the workplace. Alan Brown (2009) refers to an approach to designing technologically enhanced boundary objects that promote boundary crossing for careers practitioners.

Careers practitioners use labour market information in their practice of advising clients about potential career options. Much of this labour Markey information is gathered from official statistics, providing, for example, details of numbers employed in different professionals at varying degree of granularity, job centre vacancies in time series data at a fine granular level and pay levels in different occupations at a regional level, as well as information about education and training routes, job descriptions and future career predictions. However much of this data is produced as part of the various governmental departments statistical services and is difficult to search for and above all to interpret. Most problematic is the issue of meaning making when related to providing careers advice, information and guidance. The data sits in the boundaries of practice of careers workers and equally at the ordinary of the practice of collating and providing data. Our intention is to develop technology enhanced boundary objects as a series of infographs, dynamic graphical displays, visualisations and simulations to scaffold careers guidance workers in the process of meaning making of such data.

Whilst we are presently working with static data, much of the data is now being provided online with an API to a SPARQL query interface, allowing interrogation of live data. This is part of the open data initiative, led by Nick Shabolt and Tim Berners Lee in the UK. Berners Lee (2010) has recently said that linked data lies at the heart of the semantic web. Our aim is to connect the TEBO to live data through the SPARQL interface and to visualise and represent that data in forms which would allow careers guidance workers and clients to make intelligent meaning of that data in terms of the shared practice of providing and acting on guidance. Such a TEBO could form a key element in a Personal Learning environment for careers guidance practitioners. A further step in exploring PLE services and applications would be to link the TEBO to people tagging services allowing careers practitioners to find those with particular expertise and experience in interpreting labour market data and relating this to careers opportunities at a local level.

There has been considerable interest in the potential of Mash Up Personal Learning Environments (Wild, Mödritscher and Sigurdarson, 2008). as a means of providing flexible access to different tools. Other commentators have focused on the use of social software for learners to develop their own PLEs. Our research into PLEs and knowledge maturing in organisations does not contradict either of these approaches. However, it suggests that PLE tools need to take into account the contexts in which learning takes place, including knowledge assets, people and communities and especially the context of practice. In reality a PLE may be comprised of both general communication and knowledge sharing tools as well as specialist tools designed to meet the particular needs of a community.

Conclusions

In seeking to design a work based PLE it is necessary to understand the contexts in which learning take place and the different discourses associated with that learning. A PLE is both able to transpose the different contexts in which learning takes place and can move from one domain to another and make connections between them. support and facilitate a greater variety of relationships than traditional educational media. At them same time a PLE is able to support a range of learning discourses including discourses taking place within and between different communities if practice. An understanding of the contexts in which learning takes place and of those different learning discourses provides that basis for designing key tools which can form the centre of a work based PLE. Above all a PLE can respond to the demands of fluid and relational discourses in providing scaffolding for meaning making related to practice.

References

Attwell G. Barnes S.A., Bimrose J. and Brown A, (2008), Maturing Learning: Mashup Personal Learning Environments, CEUR Workshops proceedings, Aachen, Germany

Berners Lee T. (2010) Open Linked Data for a Global Community, presentation at Gov 2.0 Expo 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga1aSJXCFe0&feature=player_embedded, accessed June 25, 2010

Braun S. Kunzmann C. Schmidt A. (2010) People Tagging & Ontology Maturing: Towards Collaborative Competence Management, In: David Randall and Pascal Salembier (eds.): From CSCW to Web2.0: European Developments in Collaborative Design Selected Papers from COOP08, Computer Supported Cooperative Work Springer,

Brown A. (2009) Boundary crossing and boundary objects – ‘Technologically Enhanced Boundary Objects’. Unpublished paper for the Mature IP Project

Lindstaedt, S., & Mayer, H. (2006). A storyboard of the APOSDLE vision. Paper presented at the 1st European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Crete (1-4 October 2006)

Mazzoni E. and Gaffuri P .(2009) Personal Learning environments for Overcoming Knowledge Boundaries between activity Systems in emerging adulthood, eLearning papers, http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=14400&doclng=6&vol=15, accessed December 26, 2009

Schmidt A., Kunzmann C. (2007) Sustainable Competency-Oriented Human Resource Development with Ontology-Based Competency Catalogs, In: Miriam Cunningham and Paul Cunningham (eds.): eChallenges 2007, 2007, http://publications.professional-learning.eu/schmidt_kunzmann_sustainable-competence-management_eChallenges07.pdf, accessed 27 June, 2010

Schmidt, A. (2005) Knowledge Maturing and the Continuity of Context as a Unifying Concept for Integrating Knowledge Management and ELearning. In: Proceedings I-KNOW ’05, Graz, 2005.

Wild, F., Mödritscher, F., & Sigurdarson, S. (2008). Designing for Change: Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments. elearning papers, 9. 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972

Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2006). Personal learning environments challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Paper presented at the ECTEL Workshops 2006, Heraklion, Crete (1-4 October 2006

I am rushing to produce my paper on ‘Supporting Learning in the Workplace’ for the PLE2010 conference (and trying to resist the temptation to recycle previous material!). The paper focuses on the issue of context, building on discussions I have had with Jenny Hughes, based on her contributions to Stephen Downes and Rita Kop’s excellent Critical Literacies course.

The  key section (which is most certainly only a first draft) is called “Problematising the Learning Space: Contexts for Learning.” Any feedback very welcome.

A major issue on designing a work based PLE is in problematising the learning space. This involves examining relations, context, actions and learning discourses. Vygotsky’s approach to cognitive development is sociocultural, working on the assumption that “action is mediated and cannot be separated from the milieu in which it is carried out” (Wertsch, 1991:18).

The socio cultural milieu mediating actions and learning in the workplace includes s series of different relationships (Attwell and Hughes, 21010).

The first is the relationships between teachers and learners. Yet, as we have already pointed out, much learning in the workplace may take place in the absence of a formal teacher or trainer. It may be more appropriate to talk in Vygotskian terms of a More Knowledgeable Other. “The More Knowledgeable Other. is anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the leaner particularly in regards to a specific task, concept or process. Traditionally the MKO is thought of as a teacher, an older adult or a peer” (Dahms et al, 2007),

The second relationship is that between learners themselves. The third is relationships between learners and the wider community. In the context of work based learning that community could include formal education institutions, communities of practice or local or extended personal learning networks. Institutions. And in the context of Personal Learning Environments it is important not to forget the relationships between learners and technology. Technology will play a key role in mediating both the other relationships and mediating learning itself.

The socialcultutal milieu also includes the learning contexts. The most obvious aspect of context is where the learning takes place. Learning takes place in wider physical and online communities as well as at home and in the workplace. This relates to the issue of. physical domains. We can learn through h training workshops, through online communities or even through watching a television programme. A key issue here may be the distance of that domain from our practice Learning about computing through using a computer means the learning domain is close to practice. However learning through a training workshop may be more or less close to actual practice. Equally some enterprises have developed training islands within the workplace with aim of lessoning the distance between the learning domain and practice. Obviously the context of practice is key to work based learning and we will return to this issue. A further aspect of context is the wider social political, cultural and sub cultural environment. This in itself contains a raft of issues including factors such as the time and cost of learning and rewards for learning.

A further and critical aspect of context is what is judged as legitimate in terms of process and content. How are outcomes defined, what constitutes success and how is it measured?

Another critical issue on problematising the learning space is the nature of different learning discourse s. Learning discourses are dependent of different factors.

Firstly they can be viewed as am set of practices. Wenger points out that we practice eis not learned individually but is dependent on social relations in communities.

“Over time, this collective learning results in practices that reflect both the pursuit of our enterprises and the attendant social relations. These practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise. It makes sense, therefore to call these kinds of communities communities of practice.”

Although the nature and composition of these communities varies members are brought together by joining in common activities and by ‘what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities.’

According to Wenger, a community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:

• What it is about – its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members.
• How it functions – mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity.
• What capability it has produced – the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artefacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

A community of practice involves much more than the technical knowledge or skill For a community of practice to function it needs to generate and appropriate a shared repertoire of ideas, commitments and memories. It also needs to develop various resources such as tools, documents, routines, vocabulary and symbols that in some way carry the accumulated knowledge of the community. In other words, it involves practice: ways of doing and approaching things that are shared to some significant extent among members.

Secondly, learning discourses can be viewed in terms of processes methodologies and structures. As we said earlier work based learning may be more or less structured and formalised and the degree of interaction of learning processes with work processes.

Learning discourses can also be seen as taking place through the exploration of boundary objects, Boundary objects are another idea associated with Vygotsky and have attracted particular interest by those interested in Communities of Practice. The idea was introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer (1989): “Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.”

According to Denham (2003) “boundary objects serve as point of mediation and negotiation around intent” and can comprise a place for shared work. Denham goes on to say “Boundary objects are not necessarily physical artifacts such as a map between two people: they can be a set of information, conversations, interests, rules, plans, contracts, or even persons.”

As a class of knowledge artefacts their importance may lay in their role in dynamic knowledge exchange and are “associated with process, meaning, participation, alignment and reification.”

Whilst reports and documents may be considered boundary objects, they can also be seen as information spaces for the creation of knowledge. A boundary object could also be a space for dialogue and interaction. Ravenscroft (2009) has advocated “knowledge maturing through dialogue and the advantages of linking ‘learning dialogues’ and artefacts.” Knowledge maturing, he suggests, can be  “supported through setting up an appropriate dialogic space in the digital milieu

The key aspect of learning discourses it that they are fluid and relational. Vygotsky held that “environment cannot be regarded as a static entity and one which is peripheral in relation to development, but must be seen as changeable and dynamic.” It is this fluid and dynamic nature of learning  environments and discourses which provides the central challenge to the design of a PLE, particularly in a workplace context.

Yesterday, together with my colleague Jenny Hughes, I made a presentation to participants in the Critical Literacies course being run by Rita Kop and Stephen Downes as part of their ongoing research project on Personal Learning Environments.

The course blog says: “Technology has brought changes to the way people learn and some “critical literacies” are becoming increasingly important. This course is about these critical literacies. Critical, as the course is not just about finding out how to use the latest technologies for learning, but to look critically at the Web and its underlying structures. Literacies, as it is more about capabilities to be developed than about the acquisition of a set of skills. It is all about learning what is needed to develop confidence and competence, and to feel capable of negotiating an ever changing information and media landscape.”

Our presentation was on pragmatics. Pragmatics, we said is a sub field of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning.

Today we have made a short version of the presentation as a slidecast. In the presentation we explore different ideas about context in education. In the final part of the presentation we look at Personal Learning Environments and how they relate to issues of meaning and context.

The introductory and end music is from an album called Earth by zero-project. it can be downloaded from the excellent Jamendo web site.

This week sees another of our mini series of blog posts featuring particular projects or areas of research and development in Technology Enhanced Learning. This series will focus on careers and career transitions, based on a number of different projects in which Pontydysgu is involved.

The EU funded G8WAY project is looking at transitions between school and work, school and university and university and work. It aims to use Web 2.0 and social software to support learners in making those transitions. And of course that raises a series of methodological questions. What issues are effecting young people in transitions? What kind of support do they presently receive? What works and what doesn’t? How do they use information and communication technologies? How do they think such technology could help them? And, in the context of a project involving partners from six different European projects, are the issues raised specific to particular countries or educations systems or are they common to learners in the different countries? Most critically, how do we find out? We need this information in order to start designing software applications which can support young people. Of course we could undertake a large scale survey. But G8WAY has limited resources and is under some time pressure.

After some discussion we decided to undertake a methods based on identifying personas. The initial results are very promising, proving not only a basis for use cases for designing software applications, but also proving a rich picture of the issues facing young people in managing transitions. In today’s post I will outline the methodology we have used. Tomorrow I will publish some of the initial case studies undertaken as part of developing the personas.

Using story telling and perosnas to research transitions: A short guide

1. Introduction – Storytelling and personas as a way of understanding transitions

Scientific. research seeks to draw out key concepts and ideas by abstraction and the application of logic (Bruner, 1996). In a holistic approach to understanding and meaning making story telling and narrative can enhance such scientific enquiry in order to examine actions, intentions, consequences and context. (See: http://www2.parc.com/ops/members/brown/storytelling/JSB.html John Seely Brown: ‘Story telling’ for more on this approach).

A good story should be emotionally engaging, capable of application in different contexts and provide a broader framework for understanding generalities, partly because there is a certain looseness of ideas. Generalities in this sense are different from knowledge derived from abstraction: in this case learning and knowledge are the result of multiple intertwining forces: content, context, and community.

Following Brown (op cit), in purposeful storytelling people should get the central ideas quickly and stories should communicate ideas holistically, naturally, clearly and facilitate intuitive and interactive communication. Our intention therefore is use story telling to enable us to imagine perspectives and share meanings about different educational transitions by conjuring up pictures more conducive to a culture of learning and development than a formal analytical presentation which is more in the form of knowledge transmission.

The G8WAY project itself is focused upon an abstraction: processes of transition. Further it fits within the enlightenment tradition of knowledge and learning being forces for good and the path to an improved future, both individually and at a societal level.

Obviously the main focus for the G8WAY project is an analysis of real-world transition practices, resulting in the development of sound general conceptual and pedagogical models for supporting learners in the transition  process and ways to overcome barriers. This approach has considerable value but in order to understand the variety of transition processes and experiences of young Europeans a story telling approach could provide us with a richer background enabling us to develop scenarios and provide social software to support the transition process.

We propose to tell our stories in the form of personas.

2. About Personas

Personas are fictional characters created to represent the different user types within a targeted demographic, attitude and/or behaviour set that might use a site, brand or product in a similar way (Wikipedia). Personas can be seen as tool or method for design. Personas are useful in considering the goals, desires, and limitations of users in order to help to guide decisions about a service, product or interaction space for a website.

A user persona is a representation of the goals and behaviour of a real group of users. In most cases, personas are synthesised from data collected from interviews with users. They are captured in one to two page descriptions that include behaviour patterns, goals, skills, attitudes, and environment, with a few fictional personal details to make the persona a realistic character. Personas identify the user motivations, expectations and goals responsible for driving online behaviour, and bring users to life by giving them names, personalities and often a photo. (Calabria, 2004)

Personas can be based on research into users and should not be based purely on the creator’s imagination. By feeding in real data, research allows design teams to avoid generating stereotypical users that may bear no relation to the actual user’s reality.

Tina Calabria (2004) says personas are relatively quick to develop and replace the need to canvass the whole user community and spend months gathering user requirements and help avoid the trap of building what users ask for rather than what they will actually use.

Here is a sample persona created by the Seventh Framework MATURE project looking at strategies for knowledge development and learning by careers advisors. This may be helpful to you in creating Personas or you can just skip to the next section.

Name

Andrew

Motto

No idea how I learned that – it just happened!

Education and professional background

Andrew has gained an off-the-job postgraduate qualification in career guidance, together with an employment based National Vocational Qualification Level 4 in information, advice and guidance (IAG).  Additionally, organisational training also formed part of his induction.  As part of his on-the-job training, there were opportunities to visit employers and research different sectors of the labour market.

Role / degree of standardization

Andrew has been working as a careers adviser for the last 3 years.  There is little standardisation to his work as has to react to the needs of the clients.

Workplace / colleagues

He works in one secondary school helping young people with career decisions ensuring that they have the skills to make informed decisions. When not in school, he works in an open administrative central office with his laptop – hot-desking.

Learning

Andrew likes to learn and is keen to find out more about different websites which can help him further his knowledge of the local labour market.

Knowledge

Andrew has to continuously acquire knowledge in the form of national, regional and local labour market information.  This includes: education, training and employment opportunities; occupational trends and forecasts; information on local employers etc. Over the last 3 years, Andrew has gained a significant amount of local knowledge about the labour market and the education, training and employment opportunities available.  This knowledge has not be gained through any conscious process or training.  It was considered as ‘something you get to know’.  As a new employee, Andrew asked questions of his colleagues to gain this information and knowledge.  By reading internal communications sent by email and local newspapers he has been able to gain knowledge about the local labour market, which is central to his role, exemplifying his title as a knowledge worker.

Content types

He primary uses office software, email, the internet, organisation management information systems.  Information can be received in both electronic and hard copy.

Structures

Information on clients is stored on a national MIS maintained by the organisation.  Local intranets are available for storing and retrieving information.

Problem solving and other knowledge routines

The internet has become a valuable resource for researching and developing knowledge of the local labour market and the available opportunities.  A favourite website, Planit Plus, has information on local opportunities and labour market information (LMI) and is often utilised.  Email communication for colleagues also ensures that he is aware of current opportunities for training and employment in the local area.  This soft data is vital to his work and needs to be continuously updated.  Due to work pressures, he believes that in the current work climate there is little time to undertake employer visits to gain (and develop) knowledge about local employers.  Time to research different sectors and gather LMI for analysis and synthesis is restricted and considered a luxury.  Advantage is taken any opportunity presenting itself. Andrew recognises that he would value more time to develop his local knowledge by not only supplementing it with hard data, but also by returning to knowledge development methods used during his training and induction within the organisation.

Reaction to requests from colleagues

Requests for colleagues are normal by email and are usual a general query to see if he knows a particular piece of information.  As a new employee, Andrew asked questions of his colleagues to gain this information and knowledge.  By reading internal communications sent by email and local newspapers he has been able to gain knowledge about the local labour market, which is central to his role, exemplifying his title as a knowledge worker.

Communication strategy / approach to knowledge sharing

Serendipitous knowledge maturation – Knowledge sharing and maturing is ad hoc and haphazard. Knowledge typically developed and shared as part of a development process for a product or service within the organisation or as part of training. Over the last 3 years, Andrew has gained a significant amount of local knowledge about the labour market and the education, training and employment opportunities available.  This knowledge has not be gained through any conscious process or training.  It was considered as ‘something you get to know’.

Formal training

He regularly has the opportunity to attend training courses run by the organisation and has regular review sessions with a line manager.

Important tools

Office tools, internet (including Planit Plus, organisational website), email, MIS

Motivation / drives / interests

Andrew is sceptical about some applications of IT and does not like to rely on them for information.  He says it is unprofessional to go to the organisational website with a client to show them some information and then it freezes or is unavailable.

Task management

Andrew has no daily or weekly routine as he is reactive to client needs and requests.  Task are managed by an electronic diary.

Attitude towards technology

He is keen to use technology and sees it as a way forward for many of clients in developing their research skills in locating local education, training and employment opportunities.  Email communication is central to networking and finding out what is happening in the local labour market.

3. Creating personas for G8WAY

3.1 Decide on a research approach

The purpose of the research is to identify trends or patterns in user behaviours, expectations and motivations in transitions to form the basis of the personas. The best ways to gather this data is to talk to people having completed, or are currently undergoing, educational transitions. This might be through individual interviews or through a focus group or group discussion. You should explain to them first the basic aims of the project and that all information gathered will only be used for research purposes and will be anonymised (note in some countries / institutions you may have to get them to sign formal papers agreeing to this). The information we wish to know might include the following. However, this should not be used as a questionnaire. We want to encourage participants to explore around the topic and reveal their motivations, frustrations etc. Therefore it is only a starting basis for the research. Questions should follow the natural course of conversation which is dominated to a great extend by the topics chosen by the participant.

Background

• Age
• Gender
• Educational / work background
• Social background e.g. have they moved away from home, do they work in a group, on their own, if they at school what is their planned future careers, if at university how long have they been there?

Transitions

• What transition are they currently undergoing (or have undergone), including specific details?
• What did they experience during this transition period?
• How did and do they perceive this transition, before and after it happened?
• What went well?
• What were the problems / issues?
• Did they get support – did they ask for support or was it a service available to them?
• Who provided support? (examples: employment agencies, teachers, friends…)
• What sort of support – was it providing them with information, with guidance, help with problem solving, mentoring or  access to learning? (here, it might be useful to give some ideas e.g. employment agency,
• how and where did they get that support – in school, in social settings, in work?
• How did it help – or did it not?
• What motivated them to get support?
• What kind of support would they have liked to have/ did they miss?

Information and Communication Technologies

• Did they use the internet for support in transitions?
• If so what did they use it for?
• What software did they use e.g. Google for searches, forums, web sites, social networks?
• What support did they find best for them?
• Which other internet tools can they think of/ do they know that can be supportive
• How proficient would they say they are in using the internet?
• What advice would they give us in developing the project?

3.2 Analyse research data and identify persona set

Review all the research data and look for patterns in attitudes and behaviours. For example, if you interviewed people about travel, you might find patterns like users who are price driven as opposed to quality driven, users who travel frequently as opposed to infrequently, and users who prefer to research their holiday rather than asking others for suggestions.

Whilst listing these patterns, you will begin to see clusters of attitudes and behaviours that make up different personas, such as the frequent traveller that is skilled in researching holidays and finding the best prices. This persona is motivated by keeping the cost of each holiday down so they can travel more in the future. The persona’s goal is to go on as many holidays as possible.

Once you have defined these clusters of attitudes and behaviours, give each persona a brief description, such as ‘independent traveller’ or ‘bargain hunter’. There is no ideal number of personas, however try to keep the set small. Three or four personas work as effective design tools, whilst over ten personas may introduce the same confusion as a large user requirements document.

This means ideally you should try to talk to ten or so people in order to gain enough evidence for your persona. This could be through a focus group, through formal interviews or though informal chats.

3.3 Writing personas

Start writing the personas by adding details around the behavioural traits. Select details from your research, such as working environment, frustrations, relationships with others, skill level, and some demographics. Give each persona a name.

Here are some more tips to follow:

• Keep your personas to one page, so they remain effective communication tools and can be referred to quickly during design discussions.
• Add personal details but don’t go overboard.
• Include goals for each persona. This can include experience goals as well as end goals.  An experience goal could be as simple as  ‘not to look stupid’, whilst an end goal would be ‘remain informed about the company’.

Once your personas are written, review them to ensure they have remained realistic and based on your research data. Check that you have a manageable number of personas, and if two personas seem close in behaviours and goals, see if you can merge them into one persona.

References

Bruner, Jerome S (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

Calabria T, (2004) An introduction to personas and how to create them, http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_personas/index.html

Seely Brown J, Story Telling, http://www2.parc.com/ops/members/brown/storytelling/JSB.html

I have been invited to deliver a keynote presentation at the PLE 2010 conference in July in Barcelona. And the organising committee has asked each of the keynote speakers – the others are Alec Couros, Ismael Peña Lopez and Jordi  Adell to make a short video or slidecast about their presentation. So here is my contribution – hope you like it.

Czy nauczyciele w Polsce są dobrze przygotowani na pokolenie cyfrowych tubylców? Opdowiedzi na to pytanie szukałam w rozmowie z Lechosławem Hojnackim – nauczycielem i konsultantem, zajmującym się implementacją nowoczesnych technologii informacyjnych w procesie kształcenia dorosłych, przede wszystkim nauczycieli.

IB: Ten kto zajrzy na Pana stronę internetową  http://www.hojnacki.net odkryje szybko, że jest Pan aktywny na wielu serwisach internetowych. Czym się Pan aktualnie zajmuje zawodowo?

LH: W tej chwili pracuję jako wykładowca w  Kolegium Nauczycielskim w Bielsku-Białej. To taki niszowy w Polsce system kształcenia nauczycieli na poziomie trzyletnich studiów zawodowych, zbliżony bardziej do szkoły (niewielka liczba studentów, sporo praktyk) niż uniwersytetu. Jednocześnie pracuję jako konsultant w Regionalnym Ośrodku Metodyczno-Edukacyjnym “Metis” w Katowicach i zajmuję się implementacją tzw. nowych technologii w procesie dydaktycznym.

IB: Ma Pan więc szerokie spojrzenie na zastosowanie TIK (technologii informacyjno – komunikacyjnej) w edukacji. Czy szkolenia nauczycieli w Polsce obejmują standardowo  tematy e-pedagogiczne? W jakim zakresie szkoleni są nauczyciele w temacie e-learningu 2.0? Jak to wygląda w przypadku czynnych nauczycieli,  a jak w przypadku studentów-adeptów?

LH: Czynni nauczyciele w pewnych okresie swojego rozwoju zawodowego muszą się wylegitymować dowodami opanowania TIK. Na poziomie awansu zawodowego na nauczyciela mianowanego są to “umiejętności wykorzystywania w pracy technologii informacyjnej i komunikacyjnej;” natomiast na poziomie nauczyciela dyplomowanego (najwyższym) – „podejmowanie działań mających na celu doskonalenie warsztatu i metod pracy, w tym doskonalenie umiejętności stosowania technologii informacyjnej i komunikacyjnej”. Od nauczyciela stażysty i kontraktowego (najniższe) nie wymaga się w tym zakresie niczego. Nie ma jednak sztywnych reguł, co to znaczy “wylegitymować się” i duża część nauczycieli korzysta w tym celu ze szkoleń prowadzonych przez ośrodki doskonalenia nauczycieli lub inne instytucje, m.in. w ramach projektów unijnych. W praktyce posiadanie pewnej liczby zaświadczeń o ukończeniu szkoleń, ocenianych częściej w kategorii liczby godzin niż treści i poziomu – jest wystarczającym dowodem posiadania stosownych umiejętności. Członkowie komisji oceniają tylko dostarczone dokumenty określające umiejętności związane z TIK w warsztacie dydaktycznym i czynią to przez pryzmat własnej wiedzy i świadomości.

Są to najczęściej spotykane źródła systemowej motywacji zewnętrznej dla nauczycieli. Jak widać nie ma tu miejsca na rozróżnienia dotyczące stosowania konkretnych metod, konkretnych typów serwisów, sposobów komunikowania się, w tym e-learningu 2.0. Ponadto, idąc dalej tropem systemowych uregulowań, komisje powoływane dla oceniania dokonań nauczycieli na kolejne stopnie awansu zawodowego nie tylko nie mają wytycznych, ale nawet możliwości kompetentnego oceniania metodycznych aspektów TIK – nie muszą mieć w swoim składzie ekspertów w tej dziedzinie.

Są też uwarunkowania hamujące rozwój e-learningu 2.0 w szkołach:

1. Organy nadzoru pedagogicznego (kuratorzy oświaty)  otrzymali wytyczne, aby czynnie zapobiegać ujemnym zjawiskom takim jak cyfrowa agresja i inne niebezpieczeństwa ze strony Internetu, dlatego dyrektorzy szkół (notabene w Polsce posiadający bardzo mały w stosunku do wielu krajów rozwiniętych zakres samodzielności) często uznają –  bardzo racjonalnie – że większym zagrożeniem dla ich interesów służbowych jest nadmiar kontaktu uczniów z Siecią, niż wielostronne jego obwarowania, a w praktyce – ograniczenia.

2. Chyba większość polskich szkół dysponuje pracowniami otrzymanymi z, nazwijmy to, centralnego przydziału. Zdecydowana ich większość jest oparta na Windows oraz serwerach SBS o specyficznej konfiguracji. Konfiguracja ta opiera się na tzw. “filtrach treści niepożądanych” oraz kontrolowaniu i analizowaniu całego ruchu sieciowego przez serwer, który w efekcie, w standardowej konfiguracji blokuje nie tylko niepożądane strony, słowa i złośliwe skrypty, ale także wiele pożądanych stron, nieszkodliwych słów oraz bardzo potrzebnych skryptów. W praktyce w wielu szkołach używa się w związku z powyższym komputerów, na których nie da się uruchomić np. większości serwisów z epoki Web 2.0, ponieważ poprawnie działają tylko stare, statyczne strony nie zawierające żadnych skryptów (np. osadzonych filmików, edytorów online etc.). Takie pracownie skutecznie chronią szkołę przed Web 2.0. W związku z czynnikami opisanymi w punkcie 1. oraz z braku stosownych umiejętności, a często i świadomości, ta bardzo zła z punktu widzenia nowoczesnego korzystania z Sieci konfiguracja nie jest modyfikowana.

IB: Wnioskuję z tego, że sieć społeczna jest przez szerokie grono ludzi traktowana jako zagrożenie?

LH: To niestety powszechna postawa. Czasem artykułowana dość wprost np. w kategoriach zagrożeń, agresji, groźby uzależnienia lub jako bezwartościowy strumień śmieciowej informacji. Czasem świadomie lub częściej nieświadomie ta postawa ukrywana pod poglądami typu “nic nie zastąpi książki”, “skoro ONI używają ciągle Sieci to ktoś wreszcie musi ich nauczyć obywać się bez niej lub posługiwać się innymi narzędziami”, “a jak nie będzie komputera, kalkulatora, a jak braknie prądu, to będzie katastrofa”.

IB: Muszę przyznać, że w Niemczech sytuacja wygląda jednak lepiej, ponieważ osiągnieto poziom, na którym przeważa już pragmatyczne pytanie „jak?“, np. „Jak możemy wporowadzić elementy sieci społecznej w szkołach?“. A jakie sa pozostałe wyzwania związane z kształceniem nauczycieli w tematyce e-learningu 2.0? Jakie strategie pedagogiczno-dydaktyczne sprawdzają się w praktyce? W jaki sposób wprowadza Pan nauczycieli w świat sieci społecznych?

LH: Dziś wyraźnie widać, gdzie wiekowo przebiega granica między typowymi cyfrowcami, a bardziej tradycyjnie ukształtowanym pokoleniem uczniów. Nauczyciele szkół podstawowych zapoznani z faktami, zestawieniami, wynikami badań, naturą ważniejszych zjawisk – dość gremialnie dają się łatwo przekonać, iż jest to problem, z którym muszą się zmierzyć, bo po prostu otrzymują obraz sytuacji dobrze wyjaśniający obserwowane przez nich u uczniów zjawisk społecznych wywołanych  Web 2.0. Dla odmiany statystycznie zdecydowanie najtrudniej jest pracować z nauczycielami szkół ponadgimnazjalnych. W tej grupie nauczycieli najczęściej spotykam się z odmową, obrazą nawet. Nie widzą jeszcze konieczności zmiany metod pracy, populacja ich uczniów jeszcze nie jest w pełni cyfrowymi tubylcami i jeszcze da się próbować pracować po staremu. To smutne zjawisko, bo rozsądek wskazuje, że młodzież licealna byłaby najwdzięczniejszą grupą uczniów do metod i form pracy epoki Web 2.0.

Czynnych nauczycieli zatem staram się na początku przekonać, że ich “klienci” zmienili się i będą się zmieniać dalej, w związku z czym oni muszą starać się podążać za zmianami (uwaga) wbrew ustrojowi organizacyjnemu szkoły, który rzeczywiście niesłychanie utrudnia postęp (uwaga: także w aspektach przeze mnie wcześniej tu nie wymienionych). Staram się także zaczynać od najprostszych technologicznie rozwiązań, które dają maksimum efektu przy minimalnych umiejętnościach, ale jakoś przynależnych do Web 2.0. Na przykład na początek wprowadzamam bloga na Bloggerze jako tablicę ogłoszeniową. Zaczynam więc od przekazu jednokierunkowe, ale z łatwością podejmowania dalszych kroków.

Studentów traktuję zgoła inaczej, ponieważ tu jestem w stanie ustalić bardziej drastyczne reguły. Niezależnie od treści programowych, specjalności, roku i trybu studiów, wprowadzam jako obowiązującą metodę grupowy projekt oparty (przynajmniej  technicznie) na serwisach Web 2.0. Treści merytoryczne stawiam na drugim planie za zasadami współpracy, samozarządzania, angażowania ekspertów z zewnątrz, publikowania efektów, autoprezentacji w Sieci itd. Moje podejście wynika z tego, że zdecydowana większość studentów po raz pierwszy w życiu spotyka się z faktyczną metodą konstruktywistycznego projektu grupowego dopiero po maturze! Wielu z nich wykazuje także zasadnicze braki w podstawowych umiejętnościach komunikacyjnych związanych z TIK, wbrew kilkuletniemu cyklowi nauki tego przedmiotu w poprzednich etapach kształcenia.

IB: Tak ten deficyt mają też studenci w Niemczech. Wynika to często z tego, że większości nauczycieli/wykładowców brakuje po prostu doświadczenia i umiejętności w wirtualnej współpracy, kooperacyjnych technikach, samoorganizacji na poziomie grupowym. A czy Pana zdaniem szersze kompetencje, lepsze zrozumienie mają uczniowie lub studenci? Kto rozumie zalety wirtualnej pracy grupowej i potrafi pracować/uczyć się w zdecentralizowanych, nieuporządkowanych hierarchicznie, wirtualnych grupach?

LH: TAK, dzieci i młodzież żyją w Sieci bardziej i głębiej, niż sami to widzą, bo dla nich Sieć jest  przezroczysta. To zjawisko jest podobne w swojej naturze do szczerej deklaracji uczniów, że nie PISZĄ tylko esemesują, czatują. Oni nie nazywają tego pisaniem, traktują tak, jak my rozmowę. Natomiast dość powszechnie oddzielają tego rodzaju aktywności od szkoły, nie tylko ze względu na uwarunkowania, o których mówiłem wyżej lub takie jak powszechny zakaz używania komórek w szkole. To zjawisko tzw. “gry w szkołę” oznacza, że obie strony procesu (nauczyciel i uczeń) w szkole  używają reguł, których nie traktują jako przekładalne na świat zewnętrzny. Ani nauczyciele nie mają motywacji do uczenia np. komunikowania się w Sieci, ani uczniowie tego od nich nie oczekują.

IB: Wspomniał Pan, że dzieci i młodzież nie piszą tylko esemesują i czatują. Na pewno często spotyka się Pan z pytaniem, czy takie praktyki nie zagrażają podstawowym kompetencjom pisania i czytania? Jak odpowiada Pan na takie pytania?

LH: Jeżeli uznać, że taki rodzaj kompetencji, do którego przyzwyczaiły nas doświadczenia poprzednich pokoleń i nasze własne, to kompetencje prawdziwe, jedynie słuszne, stosowalne w przyszłości, albo nawet tylko “potencjalnie akceptowalne dla większości populacji cyfrowców”, to oczywiście czaty i esemesy stanowią zagrożenie.  Przy całym moim osobistym przywiązaniu do sztuki pisania i czytania oraz wielkiej literatury (proszę zauważyć, odruchowo zacząłem odpowiedź od zasygnalizowania, że stoję po tej samej stronie barykady, co inni imigranci cyfrowi), widzę wyraźną analogię do skądinąd bardzo słusznego twierdzenia, że rozwój motoryzacji zagraża zdrowym nawykom długich spacerów oraz kompetencjom jazdy konnej. Sam jeżdżę konno dobrze i od zawsze. Jednak na codzień poruszam się samochodem, a koń jest tylko moim hobby, ukłonem w stronę tradycji, zdrowym spędzaniem wolnego czasu i gimnastyką. To samo spotyka dziś tradycyjne formy przekazu tekstowego.

IB: I na tym moglibyśmy już właściwie zakończyć naszą rozmowę, ale zadam jeszcze jedno pytanie: Czy udało się już Panu zarazić swoim entuzjazmem dla nowych technologii wielu nauczycieli?

LH: Uchodzę za skutecznie zarażającego. Jeżeli ktoś mnie personalnie do czegoś wynajmuje, to znacznie częsciej do zarażania, inicjowania, uświadamiania niż np. do późniejszego systematycznego szkolenia. Niestety ciągle szkoła w Polsce obfituje w czynniki zrażające bardziej niż zarażające, ale w ciągu ostatnich dwóch lat widzę bardzo wyraźną zmianę nastawienia nauczycieli – na lepsze.

Jakie są Wasze/Państwa doświadczenia i opinie na temat wprowadzania e-learningu 2.0 w szkołach? Dziękujemy za komentarze!

Another in the occasional series on the use of the internet for Careers Advice, Information and Guidance. This series is based on research undertaken by Jenny Bimrose, Sally Anne Barnes and Graham Attwell for the UK based trust CfBT. If you are interested in reading more, the full report can be downloaded for free from the CfBT web site.

The proliferation of the use of ICT has combined with other factors (like changes in family structure and decline in manufacturing industries) to bring about profound shifts in how young people make sense of themselves. For example, the traditional move from identifying with the family to a single peer group has now been replaced by identifying with family to multiple peer groups, many of which are virtual. ICT also ensures that young people now have access to an instant, international, dynamically-shifting and vast range of stories and forms of knowledge that can inform their identity management. These identities are rarely unified, but rather multiple in nature and increasingly fragmented (Murakami, 2008).

All of this has relevance for young people’s transitions into and through the world of work. The availability of technology influences the way that clients’ access and use guidance services. It also has the potential to support transitions, for example, by helping young people identify transferable skills, help connect them to the job market and support the development of the critical analytic skills for negotiating their way through both their virtual and physical worlds (Riley, 2008). To perform any of these tasks successfully, however, young people are likely to require support from a technologically confident and effective facilitator. It is also suggested that they will also need help with learning how to engage with technology without getting lost or overwhelmed, as well as protection from bullying facilitated by technology, invasion of privacy and advertising (Riley, 2008). Even where the role of ICT expands to respond to the needs of young people in transition there is, therefore, a continuing need for professional support for Careers Personal Advisors

This professional support will need to adapt and accommodate the different requirements that young people have of technology. A fourfold typology that emerged from recent research helps us appreciate the levels of differentiation that occur in the engagement with ICT amongst young people. These four types of relationships comprise:

• Digital pioneers – advanced and innovative users of the potential of technology;
• Creative producers – building websites, positing movies, photos and music to share with friends and family;
• Everyday communicators – making their lives easier through texting and MSN; and
• Information gatherers – typically Google and Wikipedia addicts, for whom cutting and pasting are a way of life.

(Green & Hannon, 2007, p.11)

These styles that young people have of interacting with technology need to be considered when designing and implementing internet-based services for young people, though a crucial factor in implementing effective guidance services will be the Personal Advisors and their managers. They typically see the world very differently from their clients and yet it is often these adults who mediate the type of ICT used in guidance and the ways it should be used. The relative lack of impact of technology in education to date highlights not only the importance of providing young people with a more active and central voice in determining the nature and role of ICT in their learning experiences, but also the need to shift away from focusing too much on hardware and more towards relationships, networks and skills (Attwell, Cook and Ravenscroft, 2009; Green and Hannon, 2007; Riley, 2008).

References

Attwell, G., Cook, J., and Ravenscroft, A. (2009). Appropriating technologies for contextual knowledge: Mobile Personal Learning Environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second World Congress on the Information Society.

Green, H., and Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a digital generation. London: Demos. Retrieved 3 August 2009, from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-%20web.pdf

Murakami, K. (2008). Re-imagining the future: young people’s construction of identities through digital storytelling. London: DCSF/Futurelab. Retrieved 4 August 2009, from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/final_murakami_youngpeoplesdigitalstorytelling_20081201_jb2.pdf

Riley, S. (2008). Identity, community and selfhood: understanding the self in relation to contemporary youth cultures. London: Futurelab/DCSF. Retrieved 4 August 2009, from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/final_riley_identitycommunityselfhood_20081201_jb.pdf

I am towards the end of a long series of meetings, hence the limited posts on this site of late. Whilst the meetings have involved far too much travel (and I wonder if some could have been better done by video), they have allowed me the privilege of meeting and talking to many interesting, motivated and talented teachers, researchers and developers from all over Europe.

Here is just a few reflections on the discussions I have had.

Compared to even two years ago, there seems to be increasing interest and understanding by teachers of the potential of using the the web for learning and especially of using Web 2.0 and social software applications. Especially there appears to be an understanding of supporting learners in constructing their own meanings and understandings, rather than passively consuming materials. Although this may be because many of those I have met are involved in projects, teachers seem more confident about their own learning and about developing their own learning materials. And there is a real excitement about the potential of using multimedia for learning, once more not just consuming but creating audio and video.

This may be just the people I mix with, but many teachers also seem to understand the Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning Environments are for managing students, rather than providing an active tool for learning.

All this ids important. For years researchers have been saying that a major barrier to the uptake of e-learning has been the attitude of teachers, based on their lack of understanding of the technologies and their poteial for learning. I am not sure if this is true, but I think there is a change underway.

However, there remain very real barriers. Many teachers, whilst aware of the possibilities of new media, say the education system makes it difficult for them to change existing tecahing and learning practice. The reasons vary but include lack of infrastructure, lack of understanding and support from management, an overly prescriptive curriculum, lack of time, and rigid and individualistic assessment practices.

I would see these as real tensions. Teachers are increasingly adapting to the way learners are using new technologies in their daily life. And for the first time we are seeing generations of teachers who themselves have grown up with the internet. Yet still education systems are remarkably conservative and remarkably resilient to changes in society.

This leads to discussions about change. Can teachers themselves initiate such change bottom up through introducing new technologies and pedagogies in their own practice. Can we drive change through modernising teacher training? How effective are projects in embedding change? How about ‘innovation champions’? Can we persuade managements of the potential new ways of tecahing and learning offer? How effective is lobbying for changes in policy – for top down driven innovation.

I suspect the answer is all of these.But I think we have to move beyond the change management idea. This is not going to be an orderly change from ‘old’ policy and practice to a shiny new world of technology enhanced learning. It will be messy. the problem is not the modernisation of schools, but rather that our schooling systems are increasingly dysfunctional within our society and increasingly irrelevant to the way many young people communicate and develop understandings and meanings.

But I still tend to think changes in teaching and learning may come from outside the education systems. It has always seemed odd to me that most research, development and resources in the use of technology for learning have been focused on those already in education – in other words giving more to those that had. The greatest potential of Technology Enhanced Learning is to open up learning to everyone in our societies – to socially disadvantaged people, to different age groups, to those in work and those unemployed. And it is here that we are possibly more free for institutional inertia to experiment and to innovate, to develop new pedagogic approaches and new patterns of playing, working and learning.

In time who knows – the educational establishment may learn from the practice of learning outside the school.

Badaniami nad e-learningiem zajmuje się pedagogika, informatyka, psychologia, socjologia, etnografia … oraz kognitywistyka. Czym zajmuje się kognitywistyka i czego od kognitywistyki może nauczyć się e-learning? Na ten temat rozmawiałam z Markiem Goliaszem z Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu oraz autorem bloga mechanikaumyslu.pl. Oto zapis naszej rozmowy:

IB: Czym zajmuje się właściwie kognitywistyka?

MG: Kognitywistyka jest nauką zajmującą się umysłem i jego funkcjami – myśleniem, uczeniem się, językiem, świadomością, emocjami. Jest to nauka o szeroko pojętym poznaniu. Cechą wyróżniającą kognitywistykę jest jej multidyscyplinarność – są w niej wątki psychologiczne, filozoficzne, informatyczne oraz neurobiologiczne.

IB: A jak wykorzystywuje się kognitywistykę w e-learningu?

MG: Jednym z zastosowań kognitywistyki jest problem wizualizacji danych – jak złożone pojęcia przedstawiać tym, którzy spotykają się z nimi po raz pierwszy. Standarowym przykładem wykorzystania nauk poznawczych w e-learningu jest teoria obciążenia poznawczego (cognitive load theory) Johna Swellera. Osobiście uważam, że w e-learningu jest szerokie pole do popisu dla kognitywistyki, ponieważ wiedza ekspercka i technologia nie wystarczą do zbudowania efektywnych środowisk przekazu wiedzy.

IB: Dlaczego nie wystarczają wiedza ekspercka i technologie? Co tutaj proponuje kognitywistyka?

MG: Obserwując sposoby wymiany wiedzy przez internet zauważam, że często eksperci nie przejmują się sposobem przekazu wiedzy, a firmy zajmujące się wdrażaniem e-learningu za bardzo stawiają na zachwycenie kursantów efektami graficznymi. Na mój sposób myślenia o przekazie wiedzy wpłynęło zdanie Cushinga Andersona – “Dobre szkolenie jest zawsze kompromisem między możliwościami percepcyjnymi osoby szkolonej a metodą prezentacji wiedzy i sposobem jej dostarczenia”. Badania kognitywistyczne pozwalają określić owe możliwości percepcyjne.

Jednym z przykładów takich zastosowań jest zasada podwójnego kodowania sformułowana przez Paivio, zgodnie z którą, jesteśmy w stanie efektywniej kodować docierający do nas przekaz, jeśli wykorzystujemy zarówno wzrok jak i słuch. Dalsze badania pokazały, że wzrokowo lepiej kodujemy to, co konkretne, a to, co abstrakcyjne lepiej przyswajami słuchowo. Lepsze kodowanie oznacza w tym kontekście lepsze zapamiętywanie i późniejsze wydobycie z pamięci.

IB: Jakie są dla Pana najbardziej zaskakujące wyniki badań kognitywistycznych?

MG: Myślę, że bardzo ciekawym wynikiem na gruncie kognitywistyki było odkrycie przez Millnera i Goodale dwóch szlaków przetwarzania wzrokowego (two streams hypothesis) – jednego na użytek percepcji, a drugiego na użytek działania. Na poziomie mózgu za każdy z nich odpowiada osobny szlak neuronowy. Badanie to rzutuje na nasz sposób myślenia o percepcji jako o mechanizmie biernego przyswajania tego, co znajduje się na zewnątrz. Coraz więcej współczesnych badań pokazuje, że percepcja służy przede wszystkim sprawnemu działaniu.  Więcej o tym można przeczytać w wydanej przez PWN książce “Mózg wzrokowy w działaniu“. W dziedzinie uczenia się, a więc bliżej zagadnień e-learningu, duży wpływ wywarła na mnie książka Manfreda Spitzera “Jak się uczy mózg“. Autor pisze w niej o tym, że sieci neuronowe w naszym mózgu uczą się bez przerwy. Najbardziej wydajnym sposobem uczenia się jest więc zapoznawanie się z jak największą liczbą przykładów. Spitzer dowodzi, że nasz mózg potrafi sam wyekstrahować z tych przykładów reguły i zasady. Czyż nie jest to znaczący wynik dla metodyków e-learningu i wszystkich zajmujących się nauczaniem?

IB: Jak najbardziej. Mysle, że z wynikami takich badań powinni zaznajomić się wszyscy, którzy zajmują się nauczaniem. Moje kolejne pytanie dotyczy pola badań kognitywistyki. Powiedział Pan, że kognitywistyka zajmuje się percepcją na poziomie indywiduum:

Czy w kognitywistyce jest też nurt, który zajmuje się grupowymi zjawiskami, takimi jak współpraca międzyludzka, kooperacja?

MG: Tak, coraz więcej badaczy zajmuję się takimi zagadnieniami jak poznanie społeczne (social cognition). Przykładem badań w tej dziedzinie jest odkrycie neuronów lustrzanych, czyli takich komórek nerwowych w korze premotorycznej, które aktywują się gdy obserwujemy czynności podejmowanych przez innych. Wyniki te są podstawą do tego, aby zdefiniować na nowo pojęcie empatii. Rozumiem jednak intencję Pani pytania. O tym jak skuteczne jest uczenie się od siebie nawzajem świadczy dynamika rozwoju forów internetowych i list dyskusyjnych. Trudno mi wskazać na konkretne badania, które opisywałyby ten fenomen. Widocznie, jest jeszcze wiele do zrobienia 🙂

IB: Bardzo interesuje mnie właśnie social cognition, distributed cognition. Do tego nawiązuje też moje następne pytanie:

Czy z perspektywy kognitywisktyki jest różnica między e-learningiem 1.0 a e-learningiem 2.0? Czy sieci społeczne zmieniają coś w na poziomie percepcji?

MG: Na początku krótko objaśnię dlaczego trudno wypowiadać się “z punktu widzenia kognitywistyki”. Otóż nauka ta nie ma jednolitego paradygmatu. 30 lat temu kognitywistyczne badania umysłu cechowało założenie  – mózg jako komputer, a umysł jako wykonywany na tym komputerze program. Badania z różnych dziedzin naukowych, szczególnie psychologii i filozofii umysłu, ukazały słabość takiego podejścia. Kognitywistykę należy więc traktować bardziej jako szerokie spektrum badań i badaczy skupionych wokół tematyki funkcji umysłu. Dlatego też często wykluczające się stwierdzenia reprezentują punkt widzenia kognitywistyki.

Mogę więc wyrazić swoje zdanie w oparciu o wiedzę, która składa się na szeroko pojęte nauki poznawcze.  Sądzę, że e-learning 2.0. jest pozytywnym zjawiskiem. Zagrożeniem jakie widzę jest tu jakość przekazywanej wiedzy. O tym jak pogodzić wiarygodność przekazu z zaangażowaniem internautów opowiem na przykładzie projektu student.pl, przy którym aktualnie pracuję. Rzecz polega na udostępnieniu kursu z pewnej dziedziny na kilku poziomach zaawansowania. Główna idea polega na tym, że ci, którzy wiedzą już więcej tzn. ukończyli pierwszy i drugi stopień, dzielą się swoją wiedzą z tymi, którzy dopiero rozpoczynają. Nie wymaga to żadnej szczególnej technologii, wystarczy forum i czat udostępnione w ramach platformy Moodle. Na efekty tego rozwiązania dopiero czekam, ponieważ projekt dopiero startuje.

IB: Co ma Pan na myśli mówiąc “efekty”? Jakie efekty będą przedmiotem badań w tym projekcie?

MG: Efektem będzie to, że kursanci będą chcieli angażować się coraz bardziej w kurs. Z jednej strony będą osiągać kolejne etapy, a z drugiej chętnie i rzetelnie wspierać tych, którzy są na wcześniejszych etapach. Rzetelność tego jak “starsi” wspierają młodszych będzie oceniana przez eksperta przygotowywującego kurs.

IB: Czy na osiągniecie tych efektów, np. zaangażowanie, wymianę i wzajemną pomoc między uczacymi się, mają wpływ jakieś czynniki, którymi zajumje się kognitywistyka?

MG: Tak, moim zadaniem jest właśnie zapewnić odpowiednią formę przekazu. Jednym ze sposobów jest odwołanie się do wiedzy, którą uczestnicy kursu mają “na wejściu”. Chodzi o to, aby używać tam gdzie to najbardziej potrzebne metafor i języka konkretu odwołujących się do codziennych doświadczeń i elementarnej wiedzy. Innym sposobem jest oddziaływanie na głębokość przetwarzania wiedzy. Bardzo często bowiem interakcja to tylko przeciąganie i klikanie. Nie trzeba znać badań psychologicznych, aby wiedzieć, że im lepiej opracujemy materiał, im bardziej się na nim skupimy, tym więcej w nas pozostanie. Środkiem do tego mogą być chociażby zadania polegające na napisaniu dłuższej wypowiedzi na forum czy hasła w słowniku.

IB: W jaki sposób diagnozuje Pan wiedze “na wejsciu” i podejmuje decyzję o tym, jaką metaforę, jaki zwrot językowy zastosować?

MG: Przyznam szczerze, że nie mam tu złotych zasad. Dla mnie punktem wyjścia jest zapewne znana Pani koncepcja metafor Georga Lakoffa, która dała podwaliny językoznawstwa kognitywnego oraz jej rozwinięcia. Lakoff twierdzi, że nasz system pojęciowy jest tak bogaty właśnie dzięki metaforze. Pojęcia abstrakcyjne biorą swój początek z naszych interakcji ze światem, z tego w jaki sposób się poruszamy itd. Stąd też diagnozowanie wiedzy wejściowej nie zawsze jest obowiązkowe, aby używać dobrych metafor. Pozwolę sobie przytoczyć pewną anegdotę o wybitnym fizyku R. Feymanie, którą słyszałem od swojego promotora. Otóż Feyman przysłuchiwał się kiedyś rozmowie dwóch matematyków zajmujących się bodajże topologią. Choć nie znał tematu pozwolił owym matematykom rozwiązać spór, który toczyli. Gdy zapytali go jak to zrobił powiedział, że gdy oni rozmawiali on wyobrażał sobie to co mówią jako wklęśniętą piłkę tenisową. Jest to dla mnie doskonały przykład tego, w jaki sposób metafora jest kluczem do zasobów naszego umysłu.

IB: To bardzo ciekawe zagadnienie: Metafory jako centrum międzyludzkiej komunikacji. Więcej na ten temat przeczytać można w książce “Metafory w naszym życiu”. Dziekuję za tę interesującą rozmowę!

Moje pytanie do czytelnikow: Jak sądzicie, w jakim kierunku powinny zmierzać badania kognitywistyczne, tak aby można było lepiej zrozumieć i zaprojektować procesy związane z sieciami społecznymi i osobistymi środowiskami nauczania się?