Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For EARLI members only. Not for onward distribution. Knowledge creation and object-oriented inquiry 173 This chapter makes an exploratory investigation of collaborative objectoriented inquiry processes in two university courses. These two courses represent descriptive cases for how to redesign tertiary- level courses to expand beyond individual or social aspects of learning. We will first address the concept of objectoriented inquiry by drawing on both activity theoretical and learning- science conceptualizations, the first in terms of highlighting the concept of object- orientedness, and the latter by providing an analytical framework. Second, we will examine the pedagogical infrastructures of two university courses to evaluate how the implementation of the courses can be said to represent objectoriented inquiry practices. Third, we address the question of what kinds of shared objects were dealt with and what kinds of competencies the students found critical in these courses. This provides a perspective on what kinds of competencies, or “metaskills” students value in handling such inquiry processes. Collaborative objectoriented inquiry Our previous research has examined learning in university courses from various perspectives. Following the CSCL tradition, it has united the perspectives of collaborative technology- mediated learning, scaffolding expert- like inquiry practices, and designing technology to support these kinds of processes (Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2005; Lakkala, Muukkonen, & Hakkarainen, 2005). The two courses in the present study were realized without an explicit emphasis on object- orientedness; hence, they were analyzed from the point of view of how existing practices in university course could be described to reflect objectoriented inquiry, in terms of analysis of pedagogical design and elaboration of shared objects, as well as depicted by students’ self- reflections. The encompassing challenge is to understand these structures and their interdependencies in order to be able to support a more conscious emphasis on collaborative work on shared objects. The notion “object of activity” has aroused fertile discussion lately, especially within cultural- historical activity theory (Kaptelinin & Miettinen, 2005; Engeström & Blackler, 2005; Miettinen, 1998). For us, object- orientedness gives an important perspective on learning and the design of educational settings also beyond the framework of activity theory. According to activity theory, all activity is objectoriented (Leontiev, 1978). In its most general sense, the “object of activity” is a collective “motive” for the whole activity system (e.g. finishing a certain project within certain social and cultural settings) but it is also those concrete objects which are outcomes of that activity (e.g. end- products of that project). Furthermore, object- orientedness has built- in tensions within itself; the object of activity is something concrete but simultaneously something which is in the process of development (Engeström & Blackler, 2005; Lund & Hauge, this volume); it “includes both a knowledge of its properties, and a desire to transform it” (Miettinen, 1998, p. 424); it is the motive behind individuals’ activities but also something social (Kaptelinin, 2005; Stetsenko, 2005).
For EARLI members only. Not for onward distribution. 174 H. Muukkonen et al. We are applying ideas of object- orientedness from activity theory more generally in order to build a framework where collaborative objectoriented inquiry is emphasized as a potential design principle of educational practice. A key characteristic present in various models describing knowledge creation appears to be that collaboration is organized around long- term efforts for developing shared, tangible objects such as articles, models, and practices. It can be maintained that all human activity is objectoriented, although this object may take very different forms when examined at different levels of activity (see also Kaptelinin, 2005). Accordingly, individual students’ activities are also focused on some objects, for example, writing an essay for a course. Collective activity system have their own objects of activity, for example, in the educational system to produce educated students for professional life. We are, however, concentrating on those “trialogical” processes in deliberately arranged educational settings where students are collaboratively developing some shared artifacts or practices (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). So, for us here, objectoriented inquiry means that students’ work is organized for developing together some concrete outcomes during the course as a result of sustained inquiry process. We think that dialogical thinking skills, as well as individualistic working practices, are central elements of advanced learning paradigm (Wegerif, 2006), but inquiry- learning should also focus on those ways that students’ activities are organized for collaboratively modifying and making something tangible together. Therefore, the notion of “shared object” (object basically in a thing- like sense) has a more prominent place than before. Further, the emphasis on modifying a shared object together can be distinguished from merely dealing with a common artifact which is shared (e.g. a presentation) by participants. We argue that this focus has not been explicit in most previous educational practices or studies concerning collaborative learning. Taken back to educational practices, making such emphasis naturally leads to numerous questions about whether such practices are feasible or what the knowledge- creation approach actually gives to students and teachers, or demands from them. We suggest that by addressing together the aspects of individuals, small groups, and, thirdly, objects of activity in educational settings, we may gain novel understanding of students’ and teachers’ practices. In short, we are in search of educational practices that support the development of what we call metaskills of collaborative objectoriented inquiry, although we acknowledge that using the term “meta” is in many ways problematic. Metaskills of collaborative inquiry (Muukkonen & Lakkala, 2009) are proposed to address commitment to collective, objectoriented, and prolonged inquiry efforts, which are not reducible to individual productions. Furthermore, it means those skills that students must develop for monitoring, evaluating, and coordinating efforts of knowledge advancement. In a sense, these skills are triggered by practices where students are responsible for coordinating and directing their activities over different aspects of inquiry: own individual efforts, effective collaboration in a group, and the progression and high quality of the knowledge objects they are developing.
Page 2 and 3:
For EARLI members only. Not for onw
Page 4 and 5:
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Contents For EARLI members only. No
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Foreword For EARLI members only. No
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
From episode 3.1 For EARLI members
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137: For EARLI members only. Not for onw
Page 142 and 143: Excerpt 1 For EARLI members only. N
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Sequence 5 (continued) For EARLI me
Page 250 and 251:
Sequence 6 (continued) For EARLI me
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
References For EARLI members only.
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
show all

Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?