Warren Scott Ulrich Rauch University of British Columbia

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