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

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
Knowledge creation and object-oriented inquiry 179
Participants’ self- reflections
The teacher interview in Case II and the students’ self- reflection at the end of
both courses were analyzed qualitatively. In this chapter, the selected excerpts
were chosen to present illustrative self- reflections that (a) the teachers expressed
on the authentic problems, and (b) the students expressed on commitment to
shared efforts, challenges of inquiry, coordination of teamwork, and the development
of shared objects. We considered this analysis to expose some relevant
aspects about what kind of new metaskills the collaborative, object- oriented inquiry
practices appear to require, examined from the viewpoint of the participants’
self- reflections.
Outcomes
Pedagogical infrastructures in the two courses
To discuss the pedagogical design of these two cases in relation to the goals of
object- oriented inquiry, we shall address similarities and differences in the courses
by classifying some of their design features according to the four pedagogical
infrastructures: technical, social, epistemological, and cognitive.
Technical infrastructure
In Case I, access to technology and guidance for using it was provided in all seminar
meetings; technology helped the sharing of the inquiry discourse and knowledge
artifacts throughout the course, both during meetings and distance periods. In
Case II, use of technical tools was demonstrated in one meeting, otherwise the
students gained technical guidance only from a distance. In this case, technology
tools were in a crucial role in sharing all activities and artifacts because the student
teams worked mainly virtually. From the point of view of object- oriented inquiry,
both cases were missing tools that would have concretely enabled the co- authoring
of common digital artifacts in and through the VLE.
Social infrastructure
In both cases, the group formation was systematically organized so that students
represented diverse domains: in Case I, based on voluntary choices of similar
research questions; and in Case II, by teachers based on the students’ background
and expertise. In the latter, the assignment of roles and responsibilities were also
explicitly structured.
Students were generally encouraged to share their ideas and report versions
through VLE. In Case I, groups were arranged to work on their groups’ problems
and products during the seminar meetings, by drawing concept maps and