1 / 39

Warren Scott Ulrich Rauch University of British Columbia

An Organic Learning Object Cycle: A Communication-centric Model for Knowledge-building Using Collaborative Tools. Warren Scott Ulrich Rauch University of British Columbia. The University of British Columbia (live). Outline.

Download Presentation

Warren Scott Ulrich Rauch University of British Columbia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. An Organic Learning Object Cycle: A Communication-centric Model for Knowledge-building Using Collaborative Tools Warren Scott Ulrich Rauch University of British Columbia

  2. The University of British Columbia (live)

  3. Outline • Look forward to emerging models of object-oriented collaborative interaction and… …subsequent re-use of the interactions themselves as learning objects. • Discussion of a framework model that allows us to understand the development of an organic cycle of learning object oriented knowledge building • Examples: diverse means of integrating learning objects into course development • Examples: we discuss the advance of Tablet PCs, peer-to-peer software (eg. Silicon Chalk), and sophisticated, feature-rich bulletin boards as we begin to approach peer- led, student-centred and learner controlled communities of information exchange. • Discussion of the cycling of the model with time and technology

  4. Chunks of Content? • Learning objects have been viewed in a static, content-centric way; as re-usable "chunks" of content that mediate learning and can be re-combined in new contexts. • The recognition of interactivity and communication as a basis for effective e-learning has brought forward a number of technologies and strategies that promise to engage students fully; such tools can take effective advantage of learning object paradigms.

  5. Content e-learning emerges as benefiting not somuch from re-usable aggregated content, but from collaborative knowledge building Interaction adapted from Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003

  6. Content Mastery ≠ Learning How can we map Learning Objects oriented design and programming to collaborative knowledge building environments?

  7. Gratuitous Definition of a Learning Object • A learning object is a reusable unit of instruction for e-learning. In order to use it in different contexts, the presentation has to be separated from the content. which calls for specific data formats. SCORM is such a format. Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning Objects

  8. Why organic Learning Objects? • We propose an “organic” approach to educational web-based systems where learning objects, operations on these objects, and actors that perform with them are aggregated in meaningful ways. • Users of learning objects must be able to propose adaptations and improvements constantly, and flexibly. (adapted from Paquette & Rosca, Canadian Journal of Learning and TechnologyVolume 28(3) Fall / automne, 2002: Organic Aggregation of Knowledge Object in Educational Systems)

  9. Aggregation types: A comparison of the Lego, Chemistry and organic metaphors -our use of “organic” is less systemic, and relates to a social and dynamic “grassroots” growth of knowledge. Source: Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Volume 28(3) Fall / automne, 2002: Organic Aggregation of Knowledge Object in Educational Systems. Gilbert Paquette, Ioan Rosca

  10. Interaction Content adapted from Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003

  11. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Bloom levels and collaboration

  12. Start with richcontent Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 • mostly decontextualised Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  13. Rich Content: “primordial stew”

  14. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Next, Content in Context : “knowledge” level ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  15. Content in Context : “knowledge” level

  16. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Interaction with Content Student Interaction With [Course] Content E.g. Simulation, Tablets ü ü ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  17. Interaction with Content -Student/Class Interaction With [Course] Content “The 3 Way Media Tool” “Tablet PCs in the Wild”

  18. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Initial Collaborative Activities Interaction: student-student, student-teacher -Discussion in context Student Interaction With [Course] Content E.g. Simulation, Tablets ü ü ü ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  19. CollaborativeActivities • Interaction • Student-student, student-teacher • Discussion in context • Participants contribute new knowledge objects to explain ideas in discussion • eg. “I found this image -- here it is -- and I think…”

  20. Collaborative Activities II

  21. CollaborativeActivities: self-organised metatagging of knowlege objects

  22. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Collaborative Knowledge Building Participants pull in (link) to new knowledge objects to explain ideas in discussion context Interaction: student w/ student, student w/ teacher -Discussion in context Student Interaction With [Course] Content Eg. Simulation, Silicon Chalk, Tablets ü ü ü ü ü ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  23. Collaborative Knowledge Building

  24. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Collaborative Knowledge Building…and learning objects Participants pull in (link) to new knowledge objects to explain ideas in discussion context Interaction: student w/ student, student w/ teacher -Discussion in context The discussion/interaction record ITSELF becomes a learning object (generation of new knowledge/content/ideas) -eg. A Threaded Discussion, a Weblog Student Interaction With [Course] Content E.g. Simulation,Tablets ü ü ü ü ü ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  25. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 Integrate new knowledge into existing knowledge base Participants pull in (link) to new knowledge objects to explain ideas in discussion context Interaction: student w/ student, student w/ teacher -Discussion in context The discussion/interaction record ITSELF becomes a learning object (generation of new knowledge/content/ideas) -eg. A Threaded Discussion, a Weblog Student Interaction With [Course] Content E.g. Simulation,Tablets ü ü Ñ ü Re-incorporate new knowledge into existing knowledge base -eg. Wikis, wikipedia, movable type/RSS ü ü ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  26. Integrate new knowledge into existing knowledge base • Self-organising collaborative projects • Transition of a community of learners into a self-organising system • Blogs • RSS • Wikis • Ability to “liquify” content and interaction objects is important determinant of flexibility of re-integration/aggregation

  27. Integrate new knowledge into existing knowledge base: examples

  28. Wiki-based Peer Editing

  29. Wikipedia: an example of Organic Collaborative Knowledge Building http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish http://www.wikipedia.org

  30. Evaluation Interaction Synthesis Analysis Bloom Learning Levels (Bloom et al, 1956) Comprehension Content Application Knowledge Wiley @ UBC, 03/2003 …and repeat. Participants pull in (link) to new knowledge objects to explain ideas in discussion context Interaction: student w/ student, student w/ teacher -Discussion in context The discussion/interaction record ITSELF becomes a learning object (generation of new knowledge/content/ideas) -eg. A Threaded Discussion, a Weblog Student Interaction With [Course] Content Eg. Simulation, Silicon Chalk, Tablets ü ü Ñ ü Re-incorporate new knowledge into existing -eg. Wikis, wikipedia, movable type/RSS ü ü ü Content in Context:-Aggregated Content, in course Contexts -eg. WebCT ContentPages Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc.

  31. Cycles of KnowledgeBuilding over Time Interaction Content Interaction Content Change in TIME & TECHNOLOGY

  32. Cycles of KnowledgeBuilding over Time ? ? Interaction Interaction Interaction Interaction Interaction Interaction ? Content Content Content Content Content Content Interaction Content Change in TIME & TECHNOLOGY ?

  33. What will we see in the next cycle … … and the next? Trend I:Increasing ability to disaggregateinteraction/content from context Trend II:Increasing ability to navigate diverse histories of ideas “threadspace” Allows us to capture the breadth of input that leads to the formation of an idea or concept Trend III: P2P as means to collaborative knowledge building Have you blogged at a wysiwyg wiki lately? Is your RSS keeping you well fed?

  34. Trend I:Increasing ability to disaggregateinteraction/content from context • Problem: extraction of content from context while preserving the inherent meaning of the object • Solution: liquifying/exporting/importing e.g discussions, annotations, harvesting from the semantic web • Effect: reprocessing/re-construction of “raw data” • Distilling emerging themes, topics • Develop categories/graphical representation of topics • Establish relationship between topics

  35. …walking the talk The discussion/interaction record ITSELF becomes a learning object (generation of new knowledge/content/ideas) -eg. A Threaded Discussion, a Weblog Interaction Ñ Re-incorporate new knowledge into existing -eg. Wikis, wikipedia, movable type/RSS Content “Liquify” Rich Content:-Learning Objects in LO Databases -Files in Folders, etc. “Re-aggregate”

  36. Trend II:Increasing ability to navigate diverse histories of ideas • Problem: visualising a non-linear display of complex trajectories of ideas • Solution: overlaying of dimensions, i.e. overlaying a network of people and network of ideas in two or more dimensions • Effect: A dimensional space that permits the collocation of people with ideas

  37. Trend II: continued • Reflection: we have moved from thinking about re-usable content to thinking about making re-used content available through elaborate social and technical networks. Re-usability is now a function of [high] availability of standards-based resources and not one of “cut and paste” replication. • Tools (really: interfaces to the semantic web) allow us to collect and aggregate interactions

  38. Trend III:P2P (technically and socially) as means to collaborative knowledge building • Problem: the fit get rich/winner takes it all • What is the topology of these networks? Are there emerging “laws of Physics?” Are these networks/spaces democratic? Random or scale free? • Solution (technical): From client-server relationship to client-client, with each client alternately using their capacities as “server” or as “client” • Solution,(social): An iteration of the organic learning-object cycle, where “peers” add content and context to a given object, resulting in a richer object…which in turn can be disaggregated in NEW ways, in a subsequent cycle. • Effect: A multi-dimensional network of users with hubs turning nodes- turning hubs • Question: what are the organizing principles that govern the development of these live and organic collaborative networks of ideas/users?

  39. Thank You! Ulrich Rauch ulrich.rauch@ubc.ca Warren Scott warren.scott@ubc.ca

More Related