The Why Dimension Opening Frontiers for Digital Learning

1. The Why DimensionOpening Frontiers for Digital Learning PhD by Published Papers Jon Mason PhD Final Seminar QUT, September 26, 2013

2. The Elevator Pitch It’s all about one word: why Why? It is fundamental to learning & making sense of things But current digital tools don’t support it very well What have I found? A significant gap in digital learning tools As powerful as Google is, it does not handle why questions well Why seeks explanation more than information Why is ambiguous & multi-dimensional – but it makes you think! What am I selling? Something Google doesn’t do

3. The Thesis in 3 Minutes (1) An investigation & presentation of the why dimension - asking, learning, understanding, knowing, explaining - across reflective and dialogic contexts A theoretical & transdisciplinary approach - focused on challenges & opportunities associated with digital technologies that can support the why dimension Contextualised by historical perspective the evolution of digital learning probing possible futures Draws from knowledge modelling - educational theory - knowledge management

4. The Thesis in 3 Minutes (2) Five key topics Inquiry, Learning, & Asking Why Sense-Making – Models and Frameworks Metadata & Learning Content Cognitive Engagement & Questioning Online Scaffolding with ICT A collection of constructs primitive questions primitives of information retrieval why dimension the open agenda search paradigm consequent questions sense-making sense-making technologies

5. The Thesis in 3 Minutes (3) Consequences The why dimension is not (yet) explicitly supported by digital technologies The why dimension provides theoretical perspective that can inform the development of inquiry-based digital learning Why-questioning is concerned with sense-making in which meaning-making does not necessarily take place Technology support for the why-dimension identified as a strategy for cultivating cognitive engagement in digital learning (some) constructivist theory may be wrongly placing emphasis upon meaning-making Plausibility identified as important during sense-making Sense-making technologies are distinguished from semantic technologies as technologies that explicitly support the why dimension

6. a little more detail … & some explanation

7. Research Questions (1) Why does the convergent ICT infrastructure provide no explicit technology support for ‘knowing why’ in knowledge management and ‘asking why’ in e-learning? (2) Would modelling knowledge with a transdisciplinary approach inform how ‘why-questioning’ might be supported during e-learning?

8. Key Publications Mason, J. (2008a). A Model for Sense-Making: Exploring Why in the Context of Learning and Knowing. The 16th International Conference on Computers in Education, 1, 545-549. http://www.apsce.net/ICCE2008/papers/ICCE2008-paper286.pdf Mason, J. (2012a). Theorizing Why in e-Learning – A Frontier for Cognitive Engagement. In D. Sampson, J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaias (Eds.) IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning (CELDA 2012) Proceedings pp. 57-64. Mason, J. & Pillay, H. (2013-accepted). Opening Digital Learning to Deeper Inquiry. In Mohamed Ally & Badrul Khan (Eds.), The International Handbook of E-learning. Athabasca University. Mason, J. (2009). Knowledge Management and Dublin Core. Proceedings, International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (pp. 41-50). http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/ojs/pubs/article/view/953/950 Mason, J. (2011). Cognitive Engagement and Questioning Online. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.), Education in a technological world: communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts (90-99). Formatex. http://www.formatex.info/ict/book/90-99.pdf Mason, J. (2012b). Scaffolding Reflective Inquiry – Enabling Why-Questioning while e-Learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 7(3) pp.175-198. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. http://www.apsce.net/RPTEL/RPTEL2012NovIssue-Article3_pp175-198.pdf Mason, J. (2013 – in Press). The Why Dimension, Dialogic Inquiry, and Technology Supported Learning. In Sebastian Feller and Ilker Yengin (Eds.), 21st Century Education: Constructing meaning and building knowledge in technology supported learning environments. Singapore: John Benjamins.

9. Supplementary Publications Hoel, T. & Mason, J. (2011, September). Problematizing the Way we do Standards – Focusing more on Scope and Rationale. In Proceedings from Open Forum during ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 meeting in Shanghai, Eastern China Normal University. Hoel, T. & Mason, J. (2011b). Expanding the Scope of Metadata and the Issue of Quality. In MohdAyub A. F. et al. (Eds.) Workshop Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 263-270). Chiang Mai, Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.nectec.or.th/icce2011/program/proceedings/ICCE2011_WORKSHOP_proceedings_20111127_CH05.pdf Mason, J. (2011a). Developing Tools to Facilitate Integrated Reflection. Proceedings, E-Portfolios Australia Conference 2011 (pp.73-83), Curtin University, Perth. Retrieved from http://eportfoliosaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/eac2011_ebook_v1_201110031.pdf Mason, J. (2011b). Scaffolding for Integrated Reflection. The 19th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 587-594), Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved from http://122.155.1.128/icce2011/program/proceedings/ Mason, J. (2008b). A Model for Exploring a Broad Ecology of Learning and Knowing. In Workshop Proceedings: Supplementary Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 194-203). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (APSCE). http://www.apsce.net/icce2008/Workshop_Proceedings/Workshop_Proceedings_0194-201.pdf Mason, J. & Hoel, T. (2011). The Relevant Question and the Question of Relevance. The 19th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 307-311). Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved from http://122.155.1.128/icce2011/program/proceedings/

10. Methodology Thesis by Published Papers Informed by Inquiry || Focused on Inquiry Initial literature review (theory & practice) Development of concept maps Topic domains identified Paper-specific literature reviews Conceptual working and re-working Transdisciplinary perspectives considered Synthesis

11. The Paradigm page The convention of declaring what paradigm one’s research & thesis belongs to - positivist, critical, interpretive, postmodern, naturalistic inquiry, … Paradigm is also a widely used & appropriated term Paradigm shifts are even more common – especially in the literature associated with the digital revolution - paradigms of emergence, the 4th paradigm, etc This thesis is ‘multiparadigmatic’ (Taylor & Medina, 2013)

12. Methodological perspectives Hermeneutics(Heidegger & Gadamer) Philosophy of inquiry Experience is always becoming We are compelled to ask questions Not preoccupied with method Interpretation is reflexive & reflective The parts & the whole are mutually informing Mode 2 Knowledge(Gibbons) Emerged in late 20th century Transdisciplinary Fits with digital learning as a multi-disciplinary discourse (Friesen) Implications Each paper provides perspective on the aggregate body of work while also being informed by emergent constructs of a whole

13. Question: how to model knowledge?

14. Source: M. D. Lytras & M. A. Sicilia (2005). The Knowledge Society – A Manifesto for Knowledge and Learning, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, 2005. page 3 http://www.inderscience.com/storage/f410121258637119.pdf

16. Epistemological perspectives Becoming to know. Adapted from Jakubik (2011)

17. Epistemological perspectives Jakubik, 2011 Mason, 2007

18. Digital Learning & e-Learning Learning facilitated by engagementwith digital technologies

19. Digital Learning inputs Cloud Computing Apple & Microsoft misread Internet Open Educational Resources YouTube e-Research “Content is King” – Digital Libraries Web Services Learning Management Systems Learning Technology Standards Social Media, e-Portfolios Smart phones & tablets Hypertext & Multimedia World Wide Web ATC21S .… … Digital Revolution … … . . …. .. 2012 2011 Paris OER Declaration 2007 2005 2004 2009 2000 1998 1995 1994 1992 2002 1993 Laurillard – Re-Thinking University Teaching Friesen – Re-Thinking e-Learning Research Laurillard – Re-Thinking for the Knowledge Society

20. Key Narratives The Digital Revolution: is disruptive & relentless is transforming teaching & learning is conducive to self-directed, inquiry-based learning has enabled convergence(s) has ushered in a profoundly networked world demonstrates the success of open technologies & “openness” demands new skills & competencies can be classified by various iterations: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, … marked by moments such as: “content is king” (2000) -> “data is king” (2013)

21. 5 key topics & 2 central themes

22. Why Sense-Making? We all need to make sense of things (routinely) “structuring the unknown” (Weick) “a mandate of the human condition” (Dervin) It is closely related to understanding Asking why is often integral to it A term that has found its way into the discourse on digital learning only in recent years (e.g., The Horizon Report 2009)

23. Why Inquiry & Learning? Toprobe the role of questioning How to situate why-questioning in learning theory The Web’s mainstream tools for discovering and retrieving relevant information are overwhelmingly dominated by a search paradigm that is configured to search for information and facts rather than explanations

24. Why Content & Metadata? Metadata (data that describes or identifies other data or information … or anything) is pervasive in the digital infrastructure (technology, services, content) Most metadata schemas (to date) are reducible to semantics of who, what, when, & where How can content relevant to why be discovered?

25. Why Cognitive Engagement? A topic of interest in many disciplines … psychology, cognitive science, education, information systems, human-computer interaction, marketing, etc. Evidence exists that Web technologies often function as “interruption technologies” (Carr, 2010) Why-questioning prolongs interaction beyond a keyword search & skimming

26. Why Scaffolding? A term that has evolved rapidly to now include peer & technology support & interventions in learning Specialised developments show promise for supporting reflective learning & the why-dimension E-portfolios Intelligent tutoring Automated Question Generation

29. Information & Explanation • Who • What • When • Where • Why • How • If Information Processing descriptive‘primitives’ of information retrieval e.g., DC-Kernel conditional, motivational or explanative‘primitive’ Knowledge Construction & Understanding proceduralor rule-based ‘primitives’

30. Information & Explanation

31. The Why Dimension

32. The Why Dimension Involves five key activities associated with the word why and functions in both reflective and dialogic contexts Asking why:is concerned with sense-making & critical thinking Learning why: invokes reasoning skills Understanding why: constructs plausible conceptualisations Knowing why: rationalises plausible conceptualisations Explaining why: enables dialogue & story; elaborates upon plausibility

33. Contributions & Consequences (1) Why-dimension not (yet) explicitly supported by digital technologies Thewhy-dimension provides theoretical perspective that can inform the development of inquiry-based digital learning, e.g., digital interfaces that promote & prolong questioning digital tools that focus upon explanatory content development of expanded metadata schemas The why-dimension broadens the scope of the open agenda beyond access, intellectual property, public benefit, sharing,& interoperability  opening inquiry Technology support for the why-dimensionidentified as a strategy for cultivating cognitive engagement in digital learning

34. Contributions & Consequences (2) Why-questioning is concerned with sense-making in which meaning-making does not necessarily take place Plausibility identified as important during sense-making (some) constructivist theory may be wrongly placing emphasis upon meaning-making (implications also from Language Action Perspective & the “descriptive fallacy” of speech acts) Positioning of the why-dimension that aligns with discourse on 21stcentury skills & extends “guided inquiry” (Kuhlthau, 2007) Sense-making technologies are distinguished from semantic technologies as technologies that explicitly support the why-dimension

35. Metaphor? 1903: The Wright Brothers made their first flight – 36 metres

36. Questions?