Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced ... - CiteSeerX

Proceedings of the TACONET Conference Lisbon, Sept.23, 2005

Portuguese Catholic University

Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments Karl Steffens, Roberto Carneiro, Jean Underwood Editors

Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments

Roberto Carneiro, Karl Steffens, Jean Underwood Editors

Proceedings of the TACONET Conference

Lisbon, Sept.23, 2005 Portuguese Catholic University

FOREWORD Roberto Carneiro Universidade Católica Portuguesa Palma de Cima 1649-023 Lisboa Portugal E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005 Karl Steffens Universität zu Köln Pädagogisches Seminar Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50923 Köln Germany E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005 Jean Underwood Division of Psychology Nottingham Trent University Nottingham United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

On September 23, 2005, the TACONET conference on Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) took place at the Universidade Católica Portuguesa in Lisbon. The conference was organised by Roberto Carneiro and his Lisbon team on behalf of the Targeted Cooperative Network on Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Leaning Environments (http://www.lmi.ub.es/taconet). TACONET was founded in May 2003 by the members of the TELEPEERS project “SelfRegulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments at University Level: a Peer

Review” with the purpose of broadening the qualified debate around SRL. The project, which ran from January 2003 to December 2005 and was coordinated by Karl Steffens (Universität zu Köln), was supported by the European Commission (Grant agreement 2003-4710-/001-001 EDU-ELEARN, see http://www.lmi.ub.es/telepeers). In the course of the project, TELEs from a range of university disciplines, which were considered to support SRL, were evaluated by the partners of the TELEPEERS consortium, that is they were peer reviewed. The aim of these evaluations was to establish the extent to which selected TELEs had the

potential for supporting SRL. At the same time, two instruments were developed which were to be used in the evaluation process, but which could also be used by developers, researchers, teachers and students outside the project. TELE-SRL is a tool for developers, researchers and teachers in the field of TELEs who want to evaluate the potential of a TELE for supporting SRL. TELESTUDENTS-SRL is a tool for students who actually are or have been working with a TELE; they can use this tool to assess whether the specific TELE did indeed support their SRL. Both tools exist as online versions (http://www.hds.utc.fr/telepeers/); they can also be downloaded from the TACONET web site. A report on these tools as well as a guide on implementing TELEs can be found on the project web site (TELEPEERS / Results). In preparing the TACONET conference, it was our objective to increase awareness of SRL in TELEs among members of industry, academia and communities of practice and of the tools that we developed. We also wanted to stimulate research in the field of SRL in TELEs, and we finally hoped to get feedback from members of the different communities with respect to our own results. In sum: we intended the TACONET conference to be a forum for the exchange of ideas on SRL in TELES for members of industry, academia and communities of practice and to propel a collaborative network of interested parties on sustainable grounds. These proceedings reflect the contributions of the members of those different communities to the field of SRL in TELEs. We subdivided the proceedings into the three parts that correspond to the working groups at the conference: • The view from industry, • The view from academia, • The view from communities of practice. We are pleased to see that SRL in TELEs is considered to be an important topic in all three communities, and we hope that these proceedings will motivate developers, researchers, teachers and practitioners to continue their work in this field. Readers of these proceedings are invited to inspect the work of TACONET and also cordially invited to join this collaborative network. We would like to thank all the authors for their contributions. We are aware that all of them are very

busy, and that they had to invest time and effort to provide us with their manuscripts. In particular, we would like to thank Alison Twiner for editing the manuscripts from a variant of European English into British English. We also would like to thank Donatella Persico who wrote the introduction for part C. Roberto Carneiro Karl Steffens Jean Underwood. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES ROBERTO CARNEIRO is full-time professor at the Portuguese Catholic University. In the same University he chairs the Study Centre on Peoples and Cultures and is dean of the Institute for Distance Learning. He has extensive international experience with the European Commission, UNESCO, World Bank, OECD, Council of Europe and other development agencies. He served as a member of the UNESCO International Commission on Education for the 21st Century. KARL STEFFENS is psychologist and senior researcher at the Department of Education, University of Cologne. He has been involved in teaching and conducting research at the universities of Barcelona, Bonn, Cologne, Erfurt, Frankfurt. He has participated in a number of European research projects in the field of ICT in learning and instruction and is presently co-ordinating the TELEPEERS project. JEAN UNDERWOOD is currently professor of psychology at Nottingham Trent University and was previously Reader in Education at the University of Leicester. A qualified teacher and teacher educator she has worked in the field of educational technology for 30 years, conducting a number of national research projects for the UK government.

CONTENTS

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART A: THE VIEW FROM INDUSTRY 11 Roberto Carneiro, CEPCEP, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: The view from industry 13 Paul LeFrere, University of Tampere Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: Relevance to industry needs and practice 16 Pedro Pinto, CNOTINFOR, Coimbra, Portugal The use of the emergent technologies on the way to becoming a learning organization - the case of CNOTINFOR 21 Bruno Ronsivalle and Vanessa Metus, Didagroup, Rome, Italy Motivation and micro-design models and techniques 26 Mario Figuera, NovaBase/Blackboard, Portugal Self-regulated learning in TELEs: An eLearning provider perspective 43 Luke Vervenne, Synergetics, Belgium Towards an industry uptake of self-regulated learning 49

PART B: THE VIEW FROM ACADEMIA 55 Jean Underwood, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: The view from academia 57 Alessandro Antonietti, Catholic University of Milan, Italy A framework to conceptualise Technology Enhanced Learning Environments 59 Jean Underwood and Phil Banyard, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Learning and technology: A happy conjunction? 64 Hermann Rüppell, University of Cologne, Germany Learning by competition: Compete and optimize your strategy 72 Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Planning and control in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments 79

PART C: THE VIEW FROM COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE 87 Donatella Persico, Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, Italy Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: The view from communities of practice 89 Marco Bettoni, WeKnow Network, Switzerland Communities of practice as a method for knowledge-oriented cooperation 92 Christina Preston, Mirandanet, London, United Kingdom The Mirandanet Fellowship: a community of practice developing self-regulating learning environments for continuing professional development 100 Anke Dommaschk,and Stephen Frank, University of Leipzig, Germany Online learning groups as self-regulated entities 113 Niels Brüggen, University of Leipzig, Germany The use of ILIAS in student projects to foster self-regulated learning 119 Giuliana Dettori, Tania Giannetti, Donatella Persico, Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, Italy Communities of practice, virtual learning communities and self-regulated learning 126 Secundino Correia, Elsa Regina Lencastre, CNOTINFOR, Coimbra, Portugal Dragons pathways 134 Stephen J. Pape, Karen, Irving, and Douglas T. Owens, The Ohio State University Louis Abrahamson, Better Education Development, Inc. Classroom connectivity in promoting algebra I and physical science achievement and self-regulated learning 143

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART A: THE VIEW FROM INDUSTRY

11

12

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: THE VIEW FROM INDUSTRY Roberto Carneiro Universidade Católica Portuguesa Palma de Cima 1649-023 Lisboa Portugal E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS e-Learning, instructional design, knowledge management, learning management systems, learning organisations, lifelong learning, motivation, selfregulated learning (SRL), technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs).

INTRODUCTION Carry over of new knowledge on SRL from the world of academia into the world of industry (and of evidence-based business models) remains at a rather incipient stage. On the one hand, the body of research on how technology-enhanced support systems influence SRL is still fairly minimal. On the other, the market uptake of e-Learning solutions is growing at a much slower pace than had been foreseen only a few years ago. The much heralded e-Learning revolution enabled by creative twinning ventures between new learning approaches and industrial knowledge management applications (Rosenberg, 2001) was watered down with the new economy. However, when considering e-Learning as “the use of Internet and digital technologies to create experiences that educate our fellow human beings” (Horton, 2001, p.3) one would expect that the exponential rise in societal learning needs would propitiate a rapid takeoff in new business opportunities. This has not been the case and one possible reason lies with the fact that ICT is still regarded mainly as a delivery technology rather than a catalyser of new paradigms in learning and training. In this adverse context SRL could provide the turning argument to enable new business

models and innovative pedagogical approaches. In any event, SRL advocates will have to take into account that industry is mainly geared to short-term results, “realistic” choices, re-use of materials, skills measurement and enhancement priorities. Success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning. However, most people, most organisations, simply do not know how to learn. SRL contains the potential to bypass learning dysfunctions. Effective learning, epitomised in the concept of “double-loop learning”, where the learner – individual or collective – is able to challenge learning assumptions, is the consequence of advanced self-reflective aptitudes (Argyris, 1977, 1991). Thus, it is fair to say that the DNA of learning organisations is increasingly made up of SRL attributes. The contributions featured under this first section of the book deal with the complex relationship between research in SRL and corporate applications. For obvious reasons, and within the overall balance, “learning industries” deserve a special place. The chapter encompasses five distinct perspectives on SRL as perceived by industry: (i) SRL and uptake by the business community; (ii) Lifelong learning skills (individual and corporate) and SRL; (iii) Instructional micro-design addressing learning resistances; (iv) SRL as a requisite of learning organisations; (v) Integrated commercial platforms and SRL. These five themes provide a rich and comprehensive perspective on the state of the art of SRL in the world of business. They also suggest opportunities and challenges to the formation of intelligent partnerships involving 13

academia and industry. A SYNOPSIS Lefrere opens his seminal article with a statement that significant proportions of SRL needs of workers are not met by TELEs due to short-term dictates in the workplace. While it is routine for TELEs in academia to be used to enhance learning on at least one SRL dimension, few companies offer anything by way of a SRL competence development programme. In order to produce the necessary attitudinal changes both in workers and managers the author recommends the use of insights, presentational standards and techniques from advertising and the entertainment industry to trigger performance-augmentation added to a TELE. HR departments shy away from purchasing training solutions that they do not fully master. Their preference is directed to “safe” externally-regulated learning with a limited allowance for choice exercised by learners. This pattern is consistent with the immediate targets set forth by major company stakeholders. Likewise, recent drive of top executive attention towards knowledge management needs have not been convincingly met by eLearning solutions particularly in minimising time2performance of newly recruited staff. In conclusion the author states that “the TACONET community is in advance of the wider community of trainers in looking at the economically significant issue of how to use TELEs and SRL to improve the performance of industry”. The case for using emergent technologies to sustain a learning organisation is the core of the next article. Pinto provides evidence of a business model specialised in products designed to help young children develop SRL skills. His article goes on to explain how personal and organisational learning within the company is supported by appropriate SRL developments. The role of leadership through values appears to be a core variable to explain the relationship between collective intelligence and group learning. As a corollary self-learning and selfregulated skills are instrumental to the ethos of a learning company. Ronsivalle & Metus provide a robust theoretical framework for learning course architectures stemming from educational micro-design activity. The paper offers a creative approach to instructional design based on mental models theory. The main algorithms identified are derived from cognitive 14

dissonance theory. Moreover, the authors offer insights into dynamic corporate examples with special reference to extended e-Learning applications in the banking activity. Research shows how motivation for learning and overcoming “learning resistance” can be prompted by effective management of cognitive dissonance. The article ends with a provocative thesis on the relationship between “learning resistance” and “temporal dimension” or “learning time”. Given that the latter constitutes the fundamental resource the learner brings into play, management of cognitive dissonance could have a most significant impact on training effectiveness. In his contribution Figueira describes a business player that reports on the use of a TELEPEERS tool – TELE-SRL – to assess the efficacy of a commercial platform comprising a triple offer: LMS + content + tutorship. The article brings forth the relevance of the evaluation tool to help sharpen the market approach of e-Learning provisions. In line with the author’s conclusions, and based on a showcase of business examples, SRL appears to be relevant to the roll-out of a proper networked learning environment. Thus, it comes as no surprise that companies potentially like self-supported solutions provided they help (i) boost competitiveness based on human capital, (ii) reduce costs, (iii) improve both informal and formal learning, and (iv) increase employee engagement. Vervenne offers an original essay on self-regulated lifelong learning, a concept that emerges at the crossroad of personal SRL skills and organisational SRL contexts. The paper begins with a demanddriven perspective on competencies seen as the “common currency of the labour market”. Thus, a new learn@work paradigm would require a constant alignment between business and learning processes, that is to say a proper integration between staff development and the company’s knowledge portfolio. Learning in the workplace emerges as the only valid response to ever-changing markets where in a service-led economy time2competency is more important than time2market. A powerful tool to realise this dream is the ePortfolio – “the digital home of SRL”. Vervenne concludes by acknowledging that further research will be needed to bridge academic knowledge and proven theories on SRL on the one hand, with business process-driven adaptive learning solutions in the form of innovative service-oriented architectures (SOA) on the other.

FINAL THOUGHTS

REFERENCES

A practical conclusion from this section is that industry is bound to organise some form of “managed” self-regulated learning as an integral part of everyday work. Companies need to tap into the creative power of their workers in order to compete. Workers demand tools and support in order to cope with ever-changing work and business processes. There is room and “good will” for a strong partnership between university and industry (to be extended to the policy making area) to look further into the theme of SRL in TELEs. Managing and motivating people stands high in the value-added ladder of the knowledge-intensive economy. Purposeful and self-regulated learning is a strong value proposition to organisations that need to differentiate and compete with success in the globalised marketplace. In this respect TACONET offers an opportunity to build a trustworthy relationship between major stakeholders.

Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organisations. Harvard Business Review, 55 (Sep-Oct), 115-125. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69 (May-June), 99-109. Horton, W. (2001). Leading E-Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASTD. Rosenberg, M. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY ROBERTO CARNEIRO is full-time professor at the Portuguese Catholic University. In the same University he chairs the Study Centre on Peoples and Cultures and is dean of the Institute for Distance Learning. He has extensive international experience with the European Commission, UNESCO, World Bank, OECD, Council of Europe and other development agencies. He served as a member of the UNESCO International Commission on Education for the 21st Century.

15

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: RELEVANCE TO INDUSTRY NEEDS AND PRACTICE Paul Lefrere Institute of Educational Technology Open University Walton Hall MK7 6AA, Milton Keynes UK E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Human Resource Management, Motivation, SelfRegulated Learning, Technology Enhanced Learning Environments, Vocational Learning ABSTRACT A significant proportion of the SRL (self-regulated learning) needs of workers are not met by TELEs (technology-enhanced learning environments). SRL is unsupported, or discouraged, in workplaces that focus on short-term returns on investments. In such workplaces, the work context determines the depth of meaning for staff in the term “SRL”, or related terms such as “lifelong competency management”. To turn SRL into a real option for most workers (an option that they seek out and benefit from), their work contexts must change. For this to happen, workers and their managers need broader horizons. They must become more accepting of self-chosen learning, and more confident of the value of longerterm outcomes. Those attitudinal changes can be achieved by deploying insights, presentational standards and techniques from advertising and the entertainment industry (films, computer games, etc). This will help to raise learner aspirations and sensitize them to how the world seems to other people (e.g., people who are more or less fortunate than them). We give examples of powerful persuasive approaches, of interest to industry. Arguably, such 16

approaches need to be adopted by producers of content for TELEs, and supported explicitly by TELE designers. INTRODUCTION SRL has been the subject of much academic research, including research on SRL and performance, a topic that as we shall see is highly relevant to industry. Yet SRL is rare in industry, for reasons we consider later. SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS A recent survey of the academic literature showed consensus that all learners could be trained to become more self-regulating in their learning, along six dimensions: 1. “…cognitive strategies (repetition, elaboration and organization) … to attend to, transform, organize, elaborate and recover information” 2. “…how to plan, control and direct their mental processes toward the achievement of personal goals (metacognition)” 3. “…a high sense of …self-efficacy, the adoption of learning goals, the development of positive emotions towards tasks …as well as the capacity to control and modify these, adjusting them to the requirements of the task and of the specific learning situation” [According to Bandura, 1986, self-efficacy is “the

belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the sources of action required to manage prospective situations”.] 4. “…plan and control the time and effort to be used on tasks, …create and structure favorable learning environments, …help-seeking [as needed]” 5. “…show greater efforts to participate in the control and regulation of …tasks …and structure (e.g. …task requirements, …organization of work teams)” 6. “…[use] volitional strategies [to avoid] …external and internal distractions, in order to maintain their concentration, effort and motivation… [on] tasks. In summary, …[SRLs] see themselves as agents of their own behavior, …believe learning is a proactive process, …are self-motivated and …used strategies that enable them to achieve desired …results”. (Montalvo Torrano and González Torres, 2004, p.3) SRL AND TELEs IN INDUSTRY According to the review just outlined (Montalvo Torrano and González Torres, 2004), SRL characteristics are also attributed to highperformance, high-capacity people. Noticing the word “enhanced” in the phrase TELE, we might expect that using a TELE will help us to raise our performance and our capacity, along at least one of the six dimensions of SRL outlined above. In academia, those expectations are widely shared and also largely realized: in line with the belief in Higher Education that self-efficacy is important, it is routine for TELEs in academia to be used to enhance learning on at least one SRL dimension. As students become competent on that dimension, they can move to gain competence on other dimensions, until eventually they are competent on all dimensions and are fully-fledged independent and self-regulating learners. This is at the heart of the notion of ‘graduateness’ (characteristics that define the result of Higher Education). To my knowledge, few companies offer anything by way of a SRL competence development programme, as found in academia. HR practice in industry seems to be to seek to hire people who are already selfregulating, rather than to hire people who need to develop competence along some SRL dimensions.

One finding from academia, important for industry, is that for learners new to an area or with low study skills, SRL is inferior to externally-regulated learning (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2005). The TELE approach offers a solution, since any shortcomings in the performance of learners who are given freedom to learn can be compensated for by performanceaugmentation tools added to a TELE (e.g. Jermann, 2004, Kauffman, 2001, Azevedo’s “The Learning Kit”, 2004). Industry seems to be lagging in its use or awareness of such tools. In industry, two companies stand out for the freedom they give staff to self-regulate: 3M and Semco (Semler, 1989). Each allows all staff to use some of their time and company resources in search of opportunities, and as part of that, to learn whatever they want, however they want, even in areas that their managers or HR department know nothing about. In other organizations, only the upper echelons have total discretion as to what they learn, how they learn it and resources they can call upon (e.g., personal coaches, mentors). For them, SRL is an everyday possibility. But at present the mass of staff do not have the choice of SRL of any kind at work, because SRL for an entire workforce requires not just large investment, but a longer-term orientation. HR DEPARTMENT PURCHASING CHOICES The training mix from leading vendors is often broad, including user-directed options (e.g. a library of freeaccess material) and company-directed options. For example, a Microsoft brochure on Organizational Assessment says: “Choose training to suit your needs. Microsoft Skills Assessment for Organizations offers you and your staff a number of training options. Choose from instructor-led courses delivered in a classroom or online, and self-paced e-learning and books that can be combined to maximize your training dollars and get your staff up and running on an accelerated schedule. Your learning consultant will help you identify the right training mix based on the needs and preferences of your organization. Training options include: Self-study learning delivered through Microsoft eLearning Library (MELL); Microsoft Press books; Self-paced and instructor-led online elearning courses; Customized instructor-led training; Public training courses at a local Microsoft Certified Partner for Learning Solutions.” 17

Similar breadth of choice exists with other vendors. But the choice of which courses to buy is usually made by HR departments, and it is understandable if they buy what they are familiar with and has worked in the past, rather than try approaches new to them such as SRL. Vendors have to cover all purchasing preferences, to maximize sales, and so their sales force (also known as learning solutions consultants) will help them buy directed-learning courses if that is what they want. The way this works for directed learning is well illustrated by the quote below from a Microsoft brochure on Organizational Assessment: “Phase 1: Definition. Define the skill focus: Working with your Microsoft Learning Solutions consultant, you will determine the skill areas that are most critical to your success based on your current business or project needs. …Create a skills matrix: Working from the areas of skill focus, teams, positions, and job roles are defined with your business need in mind. This process takes into account current job roles, the required proficiency levels for specific job functions, and the need to develop new skills. A complete skills matrix maps the skills of each employee to those required by his or her position. Phase 2: Validation. Verify alignment: This phase is your organization’s opportunity to review, influence, and validate the skills matrixes created in the Definition phase. This ensures the thoroughness and integrity of the skills chosen to be assessed. Your organization’s IT manager then ensures that each person is properly assigned to the correct position and job role. … Phase 4: Solution. Review employee results: Your learning consultant will work with your organization to evaluate the results for each individual employee. This skill gap analysis compares the self-assessed level with the required level for each skill. Each skill is mapped to a customized training plan …including live classroom and e-learning courses. Review organizational results: The skills gap analysis report rolls up to team and organizational views so that training can be planned. Download results …to manipulate the data offline. Set training and target dates: Each skill is mapped to all related Microsoft Learning training solutions. If an employee is assessed at a lower skill level than required, training solutions are set into his or her plan, complete with tracking features and target dates for completion.”

18

The courses most often bought and offered by HR departments have little relevance to SRL, since they limit the choices that users can make while on a course. For example, they tend to be e-learning courses of the page-turning type, in which users’ options are limited to being in charge of their pace of study on, and the path they use to navigate through the material. In my experience, it is not HR practice to allow new staff to set their own priority, timeframe or method for reaching a needed level of performance, since new hires are assumed not to have the background needed to make informed decisions. This is consistent with academic findings (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2005). While new hires do lack background, the same cannot be said of experienced staff, who by definition know more about how things are done in their organization. They are a key resource in helping managers to determine where changes are needed in processes or products, and how to achieve those changes fastest. Their know-how is crucial input for HR departments charged with spotting and remedying performance shortcomings. It is therefore surprising that HR departments are not more flexible in recognizing the SRL capabilities of experienced staff. As further evidence of a lack of interest in SRL for the bulk of company training, I offer: the low number of hits from a Google search of papers at industrial training conferences; and private communications with sales and marketing managers in training and econtent companies, who report that their sales figures show HR demand is highest for formal, directedlearning courses (whether e-learning; face-to-face; or blended learning). INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS AND SRL Whether SRL is encouraged at work, with or without delivery through TELEs, depends on the goals and timeframes of the organizational stakeholders who set HR policy and practice related to learning. At a day-to-day level, the stakeholders with most influence are not customers or workers, but people with high position-power in the organization, e.g., major shareholders, board members, other senior managers). Stereotypically, learning is far from the concerns of most of those individuals, who hold shares in the company. Their time horizon is the next

stock-market reporting period and their goal is to present results that increase the share price. Typically, results that are important for that purpose are explicit financial figures (e.g., rises in sales and profits per employee; dividend per share; savings made since the last period), but not measures of intellectual capital that may affect future performance (knowledge gained per employee; staff retention; cost of training). From this impressionistic picture it will be seen that major stakeholders are under pressure to set goals and bonuses that are linked to the next reporting period. In such an environment, staff get direction rather than discretion; SRL is viewed as being a risky distraction from the short-term goal of hitting the current targets; and performance-focused training will be favoured, as the kind of learning that gives the fastest and surest return on investment. TOP-LEVEL INDUSTRY NEEDS The kinds of TELE-based courses chosen by training departments reflect demand from one group of stakeholders: middle managers who authorize attendance at in-company courses. What those managers authorize meets their immediate requirements but may not suit the strategic, top-level needs of their organizations. Prime examples of top-level needs alluded to in the title of this paper, and which SRL and TELEs should be able to address, are the need to stay in business, and linked to this, the need to stay competitive. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998, quoted in Carlucci et al., 2004), “…the only source of sustainable competitive advantage [which organizations] …can leverage is the effective use of their existing knowledge [and] …fast acquisition and utilisation of new knowledge”. The prospect of deriving competitive advantage from knowledge has driven top-level interest in knowledge management, KM, defined as “the process of continually managing knowledge of all kinds to meet existing and emerging needs, to identify and exploit and acquire knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities (Quintas et al., 1987, p387). Concerning existing knowledge, an important factor here is whether an organization knows how to minimize the “Time to Performance” (T2P) of staff who are new to the organization or new to a job

within it. T2P is the time that elapses before they reach the same level of competence as an experienced staff member doing the same job. It is analogous to the T2P for new products or processes: the time it takes before the new product or process performs at a level that meets requirements. SRL would seem to be relevant here, since it provides a way for staff to explore areas that are new to their organization, or try out variants of current processes. Concerning new knowledge, an important factor is how effective people are in working in teams to create knowledge, make it explicit, and share it with others in the organization, face-to-face and mediated by KM systems and TELEs (van Dam, 2005). Effectiveness can be raised by using team-oriented performance-augmentation tools in a TELE (e.g. Jermann, 2004). In industry, the potential of such tools may be hard to realize, because there is often a lack of clarity about the division of responsibilities associated with diffusing knowledge via TELEs and updating TELE content through links to knowledge management systems. This leads to an implementation problem: “…connections between knowledge management and (e-)learning are not operationalised. ...Learning is a HR/training department responsibility. Its focus is primarily on supporting formal learning and linking it to performance. KM addresses learning as part of knowledge sharing processes and pays more attention to specific forms of informal learning (e.g. learning in a community of practice) or to providing access to learning resources or experts (e.g. yellow pages or knowledge bases)” (Efimova and Swaak, 2003, p.571). CONCLUSION I believe I have demonstrated the potential relevance of SRL to industry needs and practice. I have also set out a deliberately bleak picture of current practice in HR departments, which doubtless do the best they can in handling the possibly conflicting requirements of major stakeholders. To close, my reading of the state of play is that the TACONET community is in advance of the wider community of trainers in looking at the economically significant issue of how to use TELEs and SRL to improve the performance of industry.

19

REFERENCES

APPENDIX – CHANGING ATTITUDES

Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Winters, F.I., Jeffrey, A., Greene, A., Cromley, J.G., Olson, E.D. and Chaudhuri, P. (2005). Why is externally-regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (April 11-15). Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1), 1-17. Carlucci, D., Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2004). The knowledge value chain: how intellectual capital impacts on business performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 27 (6/7), 575-590. Van Dam, N. (2005). The Business Impact of E-Learning. Doctoral Dissertation. Nyenrode Business University. Downloaded from http://ikmagazine.nl/downloads/ dissertatie.pdf. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Efimova, L. and Swaak, J. (2003). Converging knowledge management, training and e-learning: scenarios to make it work. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9 (3), 571-578. Jerman, P.R. (2004). Interaction Regulation in Collaborative Problem-Solving. PhD thesis No. 340, Faculty of Psychology, University of Geneva, CH. Kauffman, D.F. (2001). Self-regulated learning in Webbased environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. PhD thesis. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. Montalvo Torrano, F. and González Torres, M.C. (2004). Self-Regulated learning: current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 1-34 Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: a strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30 (3), 385–391. Semler, R. (1989). Managing without managers: how an unorthodox company makes money by avoiding decisions, rules, and executive authority. Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA: September-October, 7684. Teece, D.J. (1998). Capturing value from assets: the new economy, market, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40 (3), 55–79. The Learning Kit (2004). Theory and cognitive tools to enhance learning skills and support lifelong learning. Simon Fraser University, CA.. See also Azevedo 2005.

The take-up of SRL in industry can be facilitated by combining reasoned factual arguments (e.g. in terms of return-on-investment, ROI) with attitude-changing strategies to get managers to recognize (literally: recognize, re-think) the merits of training staff to learn to use their brains to better effect, through SRL. In the TACONET presentation that is the basis of this paper, I showed several emotionally-laden videos, originally produced for consumer products, that used powerful and memorable approaches to changing attitudes to the status quo, even for difficult-to-handle topics such as understanding the needs of people who are not like us or who do things differently. Selective use of such techniques offers a way to move to more intelligent forms of Training for Performance, capable of driving better business results.

20

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY PAUL LEFRERE is Senior Lecturer at the UK Open University's Institute of Educational Technology and Professor of eLearning at the University of Tampere, Finland (Hypermedia Lab; Vocational Learning and e-skills Centre). From 2003-2005, he was on leave of absence as Microsoft’s Executive Director for eLearning, in which role he served on various European and national advisory groups concerned with professional learning and related topics, and also on Europe’s e-learning Industry Group, eLIG. Until 2003 he was Policy Adviser at the Open University, where he was also Academic Director of a number of international multi-university projects concerned with e-skills and knowledge management.

THE USE OF EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES ON THE WAY TO BECOMING A LEARNING ORGANISATION – THE CASE OF CNOTINFOR Pedro Pinto Cnotinfor Chief Executive Officer Coimbra Portugal E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

INTRODUCTION

KEY WORDS Collaborative innovation, learning management by values, motivation

organisation,

ABSTRACT Cnotinfor Ltd. (Coimbra, Portugal) is a SME founded in 1988 focused on technology enhanced learning, professional training and virtual reality applications, under a constructivist approach. Its mission, nowadays, is to help construct the way people think, learn and interact with the emergent technologies; and to construct and improve tools, contents and contexts able to support multiple intelligences and learning, critical spirit, interaction and alternative futures design. Its products are designed under a learn-tolearn concept, helping to develop essential early skills in children and the growth of their own autonomy, self regulated learning and critical mind. The company aims to be governed by values, favouring inclusion and diversity, ecology and participation and empowering the working group to discover and live its own values. This paper is about understanding how the organisational environment and technological context can help to develop self regulation competencies inside the company, and how these competencies influence the personal and organisational learning.

Cnotinfor, as an organisation, focused on the conception and development of TELEs (Technology Enhanced Learning Environments), is designed to be creative, innovative, flexible and competitive within demanding and global markets. The technological, social and cultural context of Cnotinfor’s activity means that it has a continuous need for learning: a. The new virtual environments and interaction networks contribute even more to the re-guiding of concepts such as education and learning within the organisation: the logic of vertical transmission of knowledge from those who generate it or withhold it (through experience or hierarchic position) is now being replaced by a group construction of knowledge practice, enriched by the interaction and diversity of different sources of/support for information. This option expresses itself in the organisation of processes and execution of tasks through multidisciplinary work groups, with an horizontal hierarchy and shared co-ordination. b. The emergent technologies brought important changes to the life of the organisation and its coworkers: new information supports new possibilities of visual representation of thinking, new space and time dynamics. c. These technologies are powerful tools for learning processes and also impel the self acquaintance of the group and its enrichment, 21

f. Appealing to some assertive participation promotion methodologies, based on creativity and in Edward de Bono’s (1985) concept of parallel thinking, the technological platform of the organisation supports the exploration of its co-workers creative potential, and integrates multidisciplinary work into every new project.

Converting values into a competitive advantage requires the maximum exploitation of the collective intelligence - rational and emotional - of all those who integrate the company. Sharing the same vision and the same corporate values not only benefits the personal contribution of each one’s values, but also constitutes a progress engine for the organisation and for the people. Experience demonstrates that owning values and building them corporately in a group tends to be an incomeproducing business: human talent has got more “space” to grow and develop itself; productivity increases; the quality of the customer service improves; labour and personal time are better used; conflicts are dealt with quicker and more effectively; reflection allows errors to be rectified and direction to follow; the recognition methods favour spontaneity, invention and creation. Salvador Garcia (1998) synthesises the necessary balance of values for the health of an organisation in this way: practical or control values (efficiency, results, quality, order, punctuality, productivity, measurement, discipline, agility) that translate a surviving sense, and also political or emotional/creative development values (illusions, creativity, optimism, balance between work and life, autonomy, initiative, joy) that represent human sensitivity.

g. However, the possibility of all co-workers being connected at any moment may not always bring efficient results, if there are not adequate conditions such as: effective communication skills development, written communication, open interchange, individual responsibility and social compromise, expression of the values that guide the organisation’s actions.

Uniting these two axles in the organisation creates a reliable space that gives place to strong innovation changes, both economical and emotional. Within the organisation base there are also ethical and moral values: generosity, honesty, transparency, good conscience, social commitment, allotment.

LEADERSHIP THROUGH VALUES

Strong and shared culture

In contrast to companies who follow the conventional strategic management model, Cnotinfor does not try to define its strategies by an intellectual exercise that would therefore mould the management policies. Instead, the organisation bases itself on a set of fundamental values, identified and clarified inside the group, that can generate energy and are capable of freeing the human potential of every co-worker – values such as humility, autonomy, joy, challenge, confidence, mutual respect, community. These values are used to develop, or at least to evaluate, policies and management practices that can give them pragmatic and daily expression.

Cnotinfor’s organisational culture is based on a value sharing system, in which shared values guide people’s behaviours and also act and interact in their work to stimulate great sharing of information throughout the organisation. One of the company’s main goals is to continually invest in its staff, not only developing technical and executive abilities, but also looking forward to provide opportunities for each individual’s personal development and for the development of the group, promoting growth and recognition within the company. Once the company centres itself on people and in the quality of group relations, the sense of collective responsibility is

thanks to the growing closeness and speed of communication. However, it is also known that technologies cannot by themselves guarantee significant learning and quality experiences. d. The technological ways that support the organisational activity (CRM, software tools for synchronised management of projects, tasks and allocation of resources) do not have the mission to “teach” but to be an instrument for the development of learning experiences, in a collaborative way. They must be understood as sophisticated mediator agents that value the experience of personal and group learning. e. Technologies can unfold new ways of creating entertaining, playful and interactive spaces, synchronous or not, in which dynamic settings and learning environments can be created in an autonomous, interactive and synchronous way.

22

raised in a natural way. The belief that teams are very important as a means to execute work and to promote autonomy and responsibility – joining in the ideas and energy of everyone – helps promoting the sense of purpose, belonging and compromise. Technological platform The company’s projects and knowledge management software tools demonstrate that innovation and all other company activities can be integrated and transversal. This technological platform supports advanced functionalities in project definitions and assumptions of work teams; connection between researchers/customers/users related with the project; products with input to the project; registering all observed developments; definition of all given services in the scope of the project; task definition; tasks assignment to each work team member; meeting agendas; progress report registration;, publication of results; registration of all contacts made in the scope of the project. Publishing and sharing results is one of the company’s most encouraged practices. The main idea behind the development of the platform is for it to become a tool to enhance more significant learning. It does not aim to produce intelligent artefacts, but instead to build challenging artefacts that defy their users to become even more intelligent, more critical and more creative. Collaborative innovation cycle In our R&TD activities, we follow a research/action centred approach that involves establishing collaborative networks where node is a co-researcher. This kind of approach engages subsequent changes that shall be assumed and reflected on by every agent involved. Research and production methodologies are linked and mutually dependent and they are also necessarily centred on people: clients, co-workers and partners. Therefore the company looks forwards to incorporate the most up to date technological developments in software engineering, multimedia, new kinaesthetic interfaces, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, neuronal and semantic nets. In addition, it is especially concerned and attentive to learning theories, cognitive science, relationship marketing, quality management, and to the improvement of all company processes.

In the beginning of this cycle, we use research methods based on a co-design theory (Laurel, 2003) that endorses creativity and at the same time provides contributions about the way users learn and use tools. That is: about the users’ active participation in building tools; about their use of co-constructed tools. This creative cycle supplied by users, programmers, researchers, designers, leads to an iterative production of prototypes. These prototypes are not tested by users but with them, observing the way they use them, reflecting with them about ways to improve tools. This is, therefore, a highly participatory process, involving continuous work with every user in the process until obtaining the final product. This specification and collaborative development phase within a wider net is crucial for incorporating the most adequate technologies into the product. It takes strong research work to select appropriate technological standards to incorporate in the new product. All research process is guided by experimental work with the users. Once this iterative cycle is complete, the product emerges, and with its launch a new phase begins. The product’s cycle of life has to be supported by a net of users, researchers, education experts and designers, who promote its most creative use, self learning experiences and good practice exchange with the aim of producing a sense of belonging within learning communities. The main key to achieving a high level of customer satisfaction and sustaining economic income is to have a virtual user’s support platform that allows for change in experience and the dissemination of good practices about the use of the product in learning contexts. Cnotinfor’s one is called imagina.pt. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Cnotinfor’s existing work methodology takes a non-directive approach, in which everyone’s personal timings considering understanding and executing tasks are fully respected. This incorporates recognition of the collective vision of the teams responsible for the projects, as well as schedules and commitments to honour. The different existing teams, shaped according to their specific projects, have members that tend to 23

collaborate strictly between the team so that the project final results display everyone’s highest contribution and the uppermost quality in the final products. It is, therefore, very important that all members of this company are integrated and adapted in an autodidactic system that provides continuous self regulated learning. This need implies that every individual is an active participant in his own learning process, in different aspects such as cognition, motivation, behaviour, (Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). Each team holds and guides its efforts in seeking to acquire knowledge and abilities that can be useful to each project (Weinert, 1983 in Chung, 2000). All team working has four basic features according to the self-regulated learning bibliography (Paris and Winograd, 1990): - Efficient way of thinking conscience, that implies constantly analysing each other’s self learning and thinking exercise; - Constant expansion of strategy selection, knowing that it is more important to be a strategist than to know several strategies. Being a strategist implies considering options before defining tactics for the development of projects or problems; - Motivation to achieve foreseen goals in the project planning, (these goals can be altered and constrained by several inherent difficulties); - Reflection and evaluation concerning task execution, project success or failure causes and emotional discernment. Thus, and according to Schunk and Zimmerman (1994), every project’s defined goals are the main matter for each individual in the several institutional work teams, once all can learn how to learn, acquire abilities that involve more adaptable learning strategies, apply higher intrinsic motivation and a stronger sense of efficient understanding of learning processes. On the other hand, they also need to plan and control time and efforts engaged in task execution, as well as considering knowledge/information in order to create and structure environments favourable to project development. Following Montalvo & Torres (2004), every coworker considers himself as an agent of his own behaviour, recognising learning as a proactive process, viewing himself motivated and appealing to strategies that allow them to reach the desired results.

24

REFERENCES Chung, M. (2000). The development of selfregulated learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2000, 1, 55-66. de Bono, E. (1985). Os Seis Chapéus do Pensamento. Editora Pergaminho, Cascais, Portugal. García, S. and Shimon, D. (1998). La Dirección por Valores. SPI, La Habana, Cuba. Gardner, H. and Rinaldi. C. (2000). Making Learning Visible. Huysman, M., Wenger, E., & Wulf, V. (2004). Communities and Technologies. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kafai, Y. and Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Laurel, B. (2003). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press. Montalvo, F. T. and Torres, M. C. G. (2004). Selfregulated learning: current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2004, 2 (1), 1-34. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, Basic Books Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Eds). Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey, 15-51. Turkle, S. (1984). Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. NewYork, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster Weinert, F. E. (1983). Self-regulated learning as an instructional prerequisite, method and objective. Education, 28, 117-128. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of selfregulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice. Springer – Verlag: New York, 1-25. Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: a conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Chapter 1, 3-21. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY PEDRO PINTO – Graduated in Economics, School of Economy, University of Coimbra, Portugal (1993) and gained a post-graduate qualification in International Finance Management. He has specialist credentials in strategic organisations’ management consulting, interpersonal relationship and creative conflict resolution. At present, he is Cnotinfor’s partner and Chief Executive Officer. He is a member of the European consortium research projects i3net “Playground for Learning” (19982001), Minerva “Colabs – Collaborative Laboratories for Learning” (2002-2004) and FP6 Network of Excellence Kaleidoscope (2004-2008). He is the World Bank’s consultant in the projects “Inclusive Education and Disability in Brazil” (2003) and “Inclusive Development and Disability” (2005).

25

MOTIVATION AND MICRO-DESIGN MODELS AND TECHNIQUES Gaetano Bruno Ronsivalle Research & Development Manager, e-learning Division Didagroup S.p.A. v. S. Cannizzaro 51 00156, Rome Italy E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005 Vanessa Metus Research & Development, e-learning Division Didagroup S.p.A. v. S. Cannizzaro 51 00156, Rome Italy E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Translated by Simona Carta KEYWORDS Dissonance, instructional design, micro-design, motivation. ABSTRACT Educational micro-design activity takes place at the end of a first macro-design phase, with the aim of creating the learning course architecture. The passage from the macroscopic dimension to the single cells (Learning Object) design requires the definition and standardisation of an effective model, aiming to integrate theoretical options and educational strategies.

The second phase consists of the definition of educational strategy in relation to learning process and learning time. This stage requires (a) a distinction between schemata and semantic network (J. Kagan), (b) the association of mental models (mental states) to particular behaviour patterns, (c) the identification of algorithms deriving from the application of cognitive dissonance theory (L. Festinger). A series of experiments highlighted the actual advantages coming from the adoption of this model for learning time prediction and for Learning Object micro-design, both in distance and blended learning courses. INTRODUCTION

According to the model we propose, the first phase of the micro-design process consists of content analysis. This analysis is founded on a particular interpretation of mental models theory (Ph. JohnsonLaird) and on graphic representation techniques of knowledge systems through concept maps (J. Novak).

26

The theses put forward in this essay constitute the basis of a theoretical reference framework for instructional micro-design, with a particular focus on the phases preceding the storyboard-writing activity.

The choice of this topic stems from the need to define a methodologically-based practice for those specific activities in which the main risks related to the outcome of an e-learning or blended training programme are concentrated. Most e-learning projects do not require a brief micro-design document on the preliminary content analysis. There are no shared models or adequate control tools in this sense and, in general, microdesigners only produce storyboards. Because of the lack of documentation, content analysis remains a storyboarder’s “innermost and personal” activity that cannot be shared and controlled in itinere. As a result, the risk that practice is founded on the single storyboarder’s “innate qualities” and “common sense” prevails. In this way, any possible misinterpretation of content follows through to the final storyboard writing. Without a formalised system of interaction between macro- and micro-designer, the choice of the instructional strategy for content presentation in storyboards depends exclusively on the microdesigner’s choice and expertise and, moreover, can only be checked at the end of the activity. Our specific purpose is to define the “concept atoms” on which the activities of content analysis and the definition of the logical architecture of a Learning Object are based, through a series of reflections aimed at giving an operational interpretation of the instructional designer’s theoretical vocabulary.

In section 8 we will present some algorithms for the design of a Learning Object storyboard in a system of dynamic personalisation of training programmes for a large amount of learners. Finally in the last section, we will try to highlight the advantages and open debate on questions deriving from a flexible management of cognitive dissonance, in terms of training effectiveness and optimisation of learning time. We wish to thank all the instructional designers of Didagroup (with particular thanks to Claudia Mercuri, Andrea Petrosellini, Daniela Pellegrini, Elisa Lucatelli, Daniele Manzocchi and Sara Villella) and of Abiformazione (with particular thanks to Claudia Miolli, Marco Pigliacampo, Martina Ceccotti and Anna Ferraiolo), Antonio Bartolomé (Universidad de Barcelona), Valerio Eletti (Università La Sapienza di Roma), Cinzia Mezzetti (Università dell’Aquila), Clara Rosio (Dida America), Eduardo Hamuy and Miguel Arredondo (Universidad ARCIS de Santiago de Chile), Aida Maisano and Barbara Filippella (SPS Abiformazione), Marco Baglieri (Leeds University), Massimo Loi (Università di Padova), Laura Ferraris, Stefano Gamba and Marta Palla for their countless and precious contributions to the subject of microdesign. Moreover, we are grateful to Chiara Andreoli because she was the first to encourage us to interpret Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance from a training perspective.

In particular, after defining the difference between macro- and micro design (section 1), sections 2 and 3 deal with the analysis of the concepts of “knowledge system” and “learning process” starting from a personal interpretation of the Mental Models theory.

Finally, we would like to express our special thanks to Simona Carta for her willingness and for her patient revision and translation of the present essay into English.

In section 4 we will tackle the vexata quaestio of the evaluation of learning and of the “imperfect correspondence” between “mental states” and “observable behaviours”.

The learning design process can be divided into two distinct phases: macro-design and micro-design. Although closely connected, these two phases have different aims, different specific activities, different outputs and involve different people.

The introduction of the basic concept of “learning resistance” (section 5) then, will allow us to reflect on the motivation through an analysis of cognitive dissonance theory (section 6) and its possible application in micro-design context (section 7).

MACRO AND MICRO-DESIGN

The first phase essentially consists of the definition of training needs, general objectives, participants and the nature of the subject area (level of knowledge, prerequisites and complexity levels). It is also important to establish, in general, the 27

evaluation system, the instructional strategies that encourage motivation and the communication style. From this information, the macro-designer is able to (a) establish the macro-structure of the training programme (division of contents into modules and learning units); (b) choose the best training delivery method (online, blended and face-to-face learning); (c) produce a “tree of learning objectives”; (d) define the evaluation system features (initial, in itinere, final and meta-evaluation); and (e) structure the tutoring service together with administration and communication services (forum, chat and e-mail). After defining the general structure of the training programme, the analytical design of the single cells that make up the course can begin. For everything specifically related to the content of the course, the micro-designer must take account of the brief reports written during the macro-design phase and then expand them both formally and substantially. In this way he/she can (a) make an accurate analysis of content; (b) define the structure of objectives for each unit of learning; (c) plan the structure of each Learning Object; (d) define the general guidelines and the specific instructional strategy that will influence the web page sequence; and (e) start writing storyboards. CONTENT ANALYSIS AND REPRESENTATION The pivotal point of a good micro-design process is the rigorous analysis of content. The relevant result of this analysis consists of the elaboration of a series of concept maps representing the knowledge systems connected to the different learning objectives of the training programme. In other words, it is the detailed definition of contents and concept architecture of every Learning Object.

knowledge system is a symbolic representation of an event, a phenomenon, a concrete object or a concept. In other words, this theory states that our mind tends to create internal models of the different “portions” of reality which constitute its interest or study object. Consequently there are mental models representing the people around us, the objects on our desk, the previous day’s events, the images inspired by a poem, the concept sequence of a mathematical theorem, the sound of leaves in the wind… To know the object, the event, the concept X means having a mental model of X at a specific moment of our life. This mental model can be more or less complex, depending on the elements that “constitute” the object X. In order to simplify the discourse, we say that to represent a mental model of an object X it is necessary, firstly, to define and list the constituent characteristic elements of X; secondly, to determine the relationships existing between them; thirdly, to define precisely the time interval in which this mental model is elaborated. The result is our “knowledge system” of the object “in correspondence to a precise time reference”. This is a mental model, an internal “copy” of the world, the fundamental element establishing our relationship with reality. A “fragment” of our general knowledge system. A static “miniature” version of the world… The micro-designer is the first student of the course. While analysing content, he/she studies to define and propose an interpretation of what constitutes the object of analysis. Therefore, he/she identifies one or more main concepts and a series of subordinate and correlated ones; then, he/she describes the relationships between these concepts. In other words, he/she tries to produce a mental model capable of representing the logical and basic architecture of the newly acquired information.

Let us start talking about the fundamental elements of the process. The representation of the elements and the logical structure of an information system require a theoretical reference model of the concept of “knowledge”.

This process is the necessary prelude to the storyboard-writing activity and, from a productive point of view, needs a significant output, a “formal” document capable of extensively describing and representing the analysis results: a concept map (Novak, 1998).

Let us try to give a practical definition of it without getting stuck in a maze of different philosophical and psychological interpretations. According to the mental models theory (Johnson-Laird, 1983), a

The concept map is a logical-visual representation of knowledge on a specific subject area. It is composed of two elements: concepts, represented by text usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type;

28

and relationships, represented by vectors joining two or more concepts and illustrating the links between them. These links can be distinguished in terms of: “hierarchical” links between concepts belonging to the same field; and “non-hierarchical” links between concepts belonging to different knowledge domains. Hence a concept map can be considered a formal description of the mental model connected to the structure of contents. The use of concept maps has led to very good results in terms of effectiveness both in schools and in contexts related to adult training, like universities and vocational centres. Our experience in the coordination and management of e-learning projects makes us think that concept maps can be useful tools for micro-designers. They help them to organise, systematise and describe knowledge in a standardised way, thereby assisting the following phases of storyboarding activity. In fact, they allow the design team to share the preliminary analysis results. In this way, it is also possible to control the different steps of the productive process. From the outset, any possible misinterpretation of content can be identified and corrected. Without this first check, these critical aspects could be underlined only by reading and analysing all storyboards, with a substantial waste of time and energy. THE LEARNING PROCESS The human mind is a dynamic system. Our way of representing things undergoes many changes. Sometimes these changes are almost undetectable: after being produced according to our experience, some mental models stay with us for life. This is the case for some representations of nature or the physical world in general. In many other situations, we must significantly update our internal images of things, events and concepts used for their representation. We must change our “vocabulary” which allows us to “think” about reality and talk about it This process of “updating” and continually transforming mental models over time is the basis of the learning process which characterises a training programme. In this sense, the micro-designer cannot confine him/herself to analysing the single fragments of the training programme. He/she must aim to determine

the best ways to present the content, in order to orient the process of acquisition and integration of new information. This implies a general vision of the dynamics that influence learning and help us to choose the criteria for an intervention strategy. It is an operational vision of what happens in the learner’s mind before and after a training programme. Based on these premises, let us try to exemplify the learning process by drawing a time line. The zero point of the time line represents the initial mental model. At this level it is important to evaluate the student’s cognitive map starting from his/her reference vocabulary. In fact, the vocabulary provides useful information to determine the structure of his/her knowledge system of that subject area. The following moment is crucial: the student’s mind is stimulated in a significant way, and external information is given for him/her to manage appropriately. The third point represents the integration of learning input in his/her own knowledge system. Received information enriches the already existing concept map and contributes to the creation of the target knowledge system of the training programme. Therefore, the new mental model is created. Now we can define the learning process as the dynamic process starting from the student’s initial knowledge system and ending with the final knowledge system. It is represented by the concept map created after the content analysis, and integrated with the student’s initial knowledge system. Indeed throughout the training programme, the initial knowledge system undergoes gradual changes due to the need to integrate, modify, substitute and remove parts of the initial mental model after acquiring new information. According to this definition, “mental models” can be compared to the stills of a film which describe a specific “learning process” throughout a time line” (Ronsivalle, 2002, p.141: […]. “These symbolic structures […] are therefore the final product of the automaton’s interaction with physical reality and can be assimilated to real (more or less complex)

29

Final Mental Model

Initial Mental Model

t0

t2

t1 Figure 1: Example of time line

photograms, each representing a particular moment within the ordered sequence of the machine’s inner transformations.”).

ability to develop a series of associated clauses representing the “state of things.” The acquisition of this ability is connected to:

Each still is a static and well-defined element of this evolution and can be analysed as an autonomous object. In this sense, the expression “knowledge system” (or “mental models system”) describes a condition of harmony, a particular static relationship between the subject and a representation of reality. I know X (object, concept, phenomenon, event…), hic et nunc, that is, here and now, I am aware that I have some structured information on that specific subject. According to analytical philosophy, the term “knowledge” can be defined as a particular structure of linguistic signs (an interpretive model, a period, a series of connected propositions, a theorem, etc) capable of “representing” a systematic fragment of reality. This means that the proposition “I know X” can be translated into the affirmation that “here and now” I have a semantic structure capable of reflecting a partial representation of the world inside my mind. In this way, I can use this linguistic structure to act directly on the world and to talk with other people about the contents of the representation. Knowledge is static because we can represent the “states of things” due to a well-established ability which allows us to organise the object internally through a structural relationship. This implies a systemic organisation of knowledge but also a stable prepositional structure which is connected to the

30

(a) the possibility of going beyond the chaotic perceptive state at a specific moment in order to reach a state of emotional tranquillity, stability, balance between perceptual phenomena and interpretation of the object at issue. The resulting vocabulary represents an important filter in the translation of our mental language into the shared and common one; (b) subject’s awareness of the logical rules governing knowledge through the language and perception of a strong dichotomy between “subject” and “object”. The distance between the “I who know” and “the thing known” is necessary in order to recognise the object as “something different” at a specific moment; (c) the perception of our own present state of “power” towards external reality. The acquired knowledge becomes an instrument which controls the linguistic structure concerning the state of things at issue and allows us to transform the world and to talk about our own knowledge to other people. In reference to language, the concept of “learning” refers to a dynamic process involving comparison, integration, overlap, the breaking down and assimilation of terms, rules and theoretical models according to a process of evolution towards more and more complex and articulated symbolic structures.

A person modifies and adapts his/her vocabulary over time, along a temporal line defined by a point of departure and one of arrival: it is a continuous process delineated by mental models, static linguistic systems. Therefore the subject perceives the transition from a lower state to an upper one in his/her ability of structural organisation. The evolutionary nature is caused by the transition towards more and more complex states of knowledge organisation. This entails: (a) a state of instability connected to the more or less immediate opening of the cognitive system to external stimuli, to the different inputs of the training programme. The subject is privy to perceptions and linguistic stimuli and, in linguistic terms, he/she must be able to build a new vocabulary in a coherent and integrated way; (b) a substantial lack of awareness with respect to the continuous dynamics of the flow of knowledge and an overlap between “subject” and “object”. In fact, during the process, the subject is not always able to describe his/her learning process because there is not always a clear distinction between the initial linguistic system and the new one, between the subject and the object to learn. When the subject is fully aware of this distinction, he/she obtains a static moment of “knowledge”, a mental model, a “static linguistic knowledge” system; (c) the perception of one’s state of powerlessness with regard to the unknown object. As one comes to know the object better, he/she realises that “before” he/she did not control it completely. As a consequence we are certain of being constantly powerless (because it seems that everything can always be known in a more complex way…) and we feel ill-at-ease and linguistically lost because of the variations and inadequacies of the initial vocabularies. Hence the learning process ends the state of tranquillity and starts a period characterised by great emotional instability, disharmony, dissonance and uneasiness. The acquisition of knowledge can be compared to a series of internal micro-revolutions (Ronsivalle, 2002, p.156: “This thesis is based upon drawing an analogy between mind and a complex living body, and it assumes that the development of a biological system be epigenetic, that is, channelled

within certain paths pre-determined by the genetic code; except temporarily when it withdraws in certain periods because of over-strong external stimulation (in so-called catastrophes), it has dynamics similar to those operative in a marble’s descent down the main and meandering paths of a large valley.”), in linguistic terms, of representations of the world, of relationships with things and other people, etc. aiming to reach a new cognitive state in a more or less lasting way. Everything inevitably aims at overcoming the state of dissonance… MENTAL MODELS AND BEHAVIOURS In designing learning activities, and micro-design in particular, the issue of evaluating learning must be considered. The change from consonance to dissonance and back again must be planned and checked properly. Therefore, the question of measuring the single mental models and their evolution over time arises. What can we really “record” during the training programme? How can we prove that the student really learnt something? We have one certainty: it is not possible to capture a mental model or a learning process without affecting it. In order to understand if a significant change has been produced and what has happened in the learner’s mind as a consequence, it is necessary to record and evaluate the learner’s behaviours at different times and then, to understand if these behaviours can be considered proof of the learning process (Mager, 1975). This reasoning takes for granted that there is a link between mental states and observable behaviours, that is, between the mental models and the learner’s actions connected to the content of knowledge. The definition of the object which will be measured and the ontology of the learning design vocabulary is a very delicate passage. If the concrete aim of a training programme consists of inviting the student to perform specific actions, each action should constitute one of the markers of learning, therefore one of the objectives of the course.

31

When defining an objective, we should describe extensively the performance we want learners to be able to exhibit before we consider them competent, in order to demonstrate their mastery of the objective. But the correspondence between observable behaviours and mental states is imperfect. It is not possible to deduce the existence of a mental state starting from a single behaviour because a single behaviour can correspond to infinite mental states. Therefore, the concept of “atomic” behaviour is the product of naïve reasoning. Let us think, for example, about a person flinging a bottle at another person. This action can be caused by many different reasons: by anger towards the person showing his/her dissent; by disagreement with the other person’s reasoning; by a sense of release from life’s injustices; by jealousy against a witty sentence; by a manifestation of a mere ideological idiosyncrasy against the system represented by the other person; by an exaggerated reaction to a criticism due to drunkenness; or a fit of madness… The event does not allow us to determine a strong relationship between the action and what the subject thinks at that moment. It is not possible to deduce this correspondence from an indisputable nomic link because there is no nomic link. They are different phenomena with different vocabularies. The relationship exists but consists of weak links. These are linguistic links and cannot be deduced by simply observing the single phenomenon. In order to begin rigorous research into the mental life of the individual at that specific time it is necessary to reconstruct the structure of phenomena. This structure constitutes the framework in which the single event (in this case the subject’s strange behaviour) is included. The framework is made of various elements that are significant for the subject and integrated into a thin relational fabric; this fabric consists of single interwoven events throughout a time line according to an articulated logic. It is the logic of a complex system whose architecture cannot and must not be compared to a simple game between stimuli and answers.

32

The framework of an observable behaviour and of its relationship with a specific mental state is given by the structure of behaviours and events that precede and follow the single action. They are similar to the images of the same object reflected in a cyclical fashion in a room of mirrors. Here, the time and the logical sequence of images allow us to reconstruct the object. Consequently, we cannot speak of “atomic behaviours” representing “mental states” because only logical structures of behaviours could correspond to a specific mental state (Kagan, 2002). When using the concept of a “structure of behaviours” we always emphasise the flow of single events according to a temporal link. What we have said could be seen as stating the obvious but it has great epistemological importance in the training field. We have stated that we can check the presence or the absence of a knowledge system, of a mental model, only by observing a performance; but this statement is partially false and even completely naïve from a methodological point of view. The possibility to directly measure a knowledge system through a stimulus and the following learner’s reaction is an illusion. In fact both the stimulus and the reaction belong to a flow of events that have a specific meaning for the subject; this flow, then, cannot be isolated and analysed without referring to the framework. Therefore the only way forward consists of analysing the connection between single observable behaviours, the structure of “adjacent” behaviours (in a logical-temporal sense) and the hypothetical mental state connected to this web of events. In fact the correspondence, or the possibility of correspondence, can make sense only if it is built according to its connection in the mind at a specific moment with the web of behaviours considered to be “signs” of the mental model. That is why we talk about trees of observable behaviours. Instead of the single elements, it is necessary to pay attention to the structural relationships and architecture of the system. The making of a tree of observable behaviours constitutes the final step in the formulation of various hypotheses on “imperfect correspondence.” At the heart of each hypothesis there is the concept of a connection between a specific structure of behaviours and a single mental state, according to a

one-to-many logic and to the logic of the timedependent flow. The “measurement”, that is the observation of the behaviours constituting the web, will be the basis for a check of the “coherence” of the initial hypothesis; moreover, it will have to follow the rules of methodological falsification, in terms of conjectures and refutations. Only by observing-measuring the different images (the behaviours) reflected in the room of mirrors, thus the “framework” and not a simple “atomic” image, will we be able to check the existence of the object (the mental model). (This perspective derives from a personal interpretation of Quine’s epistemological holism).

process? Is the relationship between the objectives of the general course and the single fragments clear? This is a basic point. The general objective of a training programme consists of sharing a series of conceptual stimuli with the learner; the stimuli aim to integrate particular visions of reality with direct intervention in the scope of content application. Hence, it is not only a question of changing our way of seeing things but of creating new behavioural patterns. We need to measure and check the outcome. Then we must observe behaviours because they constitute (a) “proofs” of the existence of a specific mental state, and (b) evidence of the integration of the new mental model into the learner’s behavioural pattern.

MOTIVATION The definition of the relationship between mental models and observable behaviours plays a fundamental role when the micro-designer chooses the instructional strategy that will be adopted in the storyboards. From an instructional point of view, the problem of the “strategy” is closely related to the “motivation”. What reasons or events will be capable of guiding the learner to abandon his/her knowledge systems and start new cognitive experiences? How can the learner be stimulated to make such an endeavour? The adoption of the right strategy encouraging motivation can lead the student to question his/her knowledge system and to accept the new inputs. As already said, an observable behaviour can be considered one proof (but not “the only one”) of the existence of a mental model if and only if it refers to a structure of behaviours, to a significant framework of events and interactions. The relationship with the framework allows us to understand the meaning of that behaviour for the subject in relation to his/her own everyday practical, intellectual and professional dimensions. In other words, it is necessary to check the functionality level of that flow of behaviours, that is their aptitude for coherently responding to a series of more or less practical needs constituting the learner’s training needs. How much does the learner care about succeeding in completing that activity? What importance does the sequence of behaviours have in relation to his/her life? How does the learner perceive the behaviour at hand, as a single activity or as part and parcel of a

Alternatively, when starting a training programme, the learner could already have some notions and application models capable of solving a wide set of practical problems in a more or less functional way. To “contextualise” an observable behaviour means defining its “distance” from the learner’s initial behavioural patterns. What is the basic difference between the old and the new behavioural pattern? Are there any points of contact? In this sense, the identification of these particular “sensors” is of primary importance. Everything revolves around their pertinence to the new behavioural patterns that the learner should obtain, and then demonstrate to have obtained, during the training programme. The coherence of the “sensors” system is the result of a rigorous analysis of the context where the learner will apply these new patterns according to a concretely functional perspective. If one designs behavioural patterns that are abstract and detached from everyday practice and/or does not adequately communicate the logic of the design to the learner, one risks compromising the good result of this integration. In fact, by doing so, one produces only epiphenomenal changes, without any measurable effect on the learner’s different professional and/or intellectual activities. The learner could “learn” the new information systems and easily pass all tests, but then he/she could continue to apply his/her old behavioural patterns after eliminating the fake “mental model” as a foreign body. In order to understand this concept better, let us take the example of a banking group which decides to experiment a new procedure in granting bank credits 33

to small enterprises. Even if there are no particular problems in this area, the new procedure aims at managing the Compliance risk in banks more efficiently, according to the guidelines of the Basel Committee. In order to check the effectiveness and the functional stability of the new procedure, the managers of the banking group choose a sample of five bank agencies. Before adopting the new system, the managers of these agencies are invited freely to attend an e-learning training programme on the corporate LMS platform. At the end of it they will have to express an opinion on the new procedure. The multimedia course contains a general introduction to the theoretical aspects connected with granting bank credit (norms, policies, etc.) and a section for the analysis of the new procedure with the simulation of its managing software. This experimental phase is therefore very useful because it allows an immediate check of possible employee reactions to the new procedure and, at the same time, the potential of the Training Area to support and encourage changes. When designing the training programme, the fact that learners perceive the old procedure in a positive light cannot be ignored. They know it inside out, they understand its various articulations and implications, they have tested its different applications in many situations and they have often checked its effectiveness and functionality in corporate processes. Therefore there is a sort of implicit acceptance of the initial model, a strong cognitive and behavioural relationship which remains stable because of the positive results achieved year after year. This relationship could produce some phenomena of resistance and discomfort against the introduction of the new procedure. As stated before, the learning process causes a state of great emotional instability, disharmony and uneasiness, in other words, the dissonance between concept groups. This takes for granted that the stable state of knowledge is characterised by a certain level of consonance which provides the cognitive system with an inertial force preventing changes and learning happening. Why should one abandon a well-functioning model? Why should one submit to

34

the stress of a training programme if the old procedure never caused any problems? In this case, the designer must consider this potential “learning resistance” (This subject was covered in detail in Loi and Ronsivalle, 2005 and in Ronsivalle, 2005a.) that is directly proportional to (a) the level of consonance of the initial mental model and behavioural pattern with the learner’s professional practice, and (b) the “distance”, in terms of quantity and quality of information, between the old and the new procedure. This information will then be integrated with a series of other factors that describe the learner’s total cognitive state in relation to a specific content structure: • learning style, that is the way in which he/she succeeds in acquiring information in the best way; • cognitive style, that is the way in which he/she internally organises the newly acquired information; • the type and means of representing and communicating the acquired information; • the relationship between the subject and the delivery method of contents. By composing all these variables, we obtain a comprehensive description of the elements which could “stop”, “oppose” and “delay” the student’s learning process. The practical effects of this resistance could be represented by a lack of interest and, consequently, “desertion” and/or “inactivity” towards learning activities, an increase of learning time, a superficial acquisition of information without functionally including behavioural patterns, a refusal to apply some fundamental elements of the new procedure, etc. Hence the instructional designer must firstly determine the constituent elements of the opposing force and then define their intensity. By doing this he/she will be able to check all these factors by means of a strategy capable of overcoming the learning resistance and encouraging the learner to voluntarily acquire new information. FESTINGER’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Our main hypothesis states that a possible instructional strategy effective in terms of

motivation for learning can be represented by the best and distributed management of cognitive dissonance. In other words, we believe that by introducing information capable of causing a more or less light state of discomfort towards the initial mental model - in relation to the behavioural patterns connected to it - it is possible to call into question the student’s cognitive consonance and lead him/her to look for new information to overcome the inertial force. According to this perspective, cognitive dissonance is an actual motivating factor in the training field and a necessary tool for instructional design. In fact it encourages both the learning process and the abandonment of the emotive stability produced by the state of “knowledge”. This hypothesis is founded on a particular instructional interpretation of Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1956). According to this theory, one of the characteristic features of a person’s mental life is the level of coherence among his/her different cognitive elements, that is his/her “mental models”, representing his/her knowledge system at a specific moment. In particular, this relationship of coherence, called “consonance”, obtains a specific meaning when these mental models are separate representations of the same phenomenological sphere, of the same fragment of “reality”. This theory states that there are two kinds of relationships between couples and/or aggregates of mental models: (a) two mental models are joined by a relationship of “connection” when they refer to the same events, phenomena, theories, concepts and similar objects in complementary terms and they can be compared in a logical or semantic way. Thanks to this comparison it is possible to define the level of coherence, incoherence and/or contradiction that specifies their connection to their reference object. Only in this case can we talk about “consonance” and “dissonance”. (b) two mental models are joined by a relationship of “non-connection” when they cannot be compared either from a logical point of view or in terms of reference to the same phenomenon. In this case, it is not possible to declare any relationship of coherence.

Ruling out the relationships of “non-connection”, this theory focuses on the possibility of measuring and “quantifying” the level of dissonance, thanks to (a) an analysis of the importance of the single mental models when compared to one another, and (b) a “pondering proportion” of all dissonance relationships featuring the subject’s mental model at a specific moment. In this way the concept of “dissonance” is brought back to a systemic perspective of the subject’s mental life, with a strong emphasis on the dynamic - almost “physical”- nature of the relationships between the various opposite cognitive groups. The mind-dynamic system metaphor is at the heart of Festinger’s central thesis: every human being naturally aspires to the maximum level of “cognitive consonance”. Any possible change causing a state of “dissonance” is perceived by the subject as a cause of “psychological distress”. This discomfort provokes a series of reactions – behaviours, complex activities, decisions – which aim at re-establishing the state of consonance and at avoiding events and/or information which could increase the level of incoherence between mental models. These reactions are influenced by the magnitude of dissonance: they change according to the number of cognitive dissonant elements and to their importance and relevance in the person’s “mental economy”. Among the dissonance management techniques, Festinger defines four main types: 1.

2.

3.

Direct change of one dissonant element, that is an opinion, an attitude, a value or a behaviour, bearing in mind that the behavioural pattern is generally the element most resistant to change. Introduction and integration of new consonant cognitions able to reduce the global level of dissonance. The subject selects information in order to get some elements consonant with his/her feelings, beliefs and past behaviours, and to actively avoid the incoherent or dissonant ones. Therefore there could be some mediator cognitive elements, potentially apt at conciliating dissonant ones. By introducing elements like these, the subject can harmonise the “picture” without directly modifying the dissonant cognitions. Cognitive discrediting of the elements involved in the dissonance relationship. Some research states that people very often choose this option

35

4.

when the dissonance does not involve relevant or very important cognitive elements. Voluntary acceptance of the subject every time that (a) dissonance is felt like a state of brief discomfort, and (b) there is the possibility that any activity made to reduce the discomfort, but unable to contrast it, could determine an increase of dissonance. This means that every day people could experience a certain level of dissonance and let it decay after some time without adopting any other reduction strategy, other than the one leading to the creation of a virtual space between minds and dissonant cognitions.

The specific way in which dissonance is reduced, together with the effectiveness of these endeavours, depends on the ease with which the cognitive elements can be modified or added. The ability to change depends on the number of consonant relations joining one cognition to the others, and how these cognitions are connected to the fundamental perceptions of the physical and social world. The more a cognitive element is resistant to change, the less likely it will change to reduce dissonance. But when all cognitive elements involved are resistant to change, the subject can choose to reduce the importance of cognitive dissonance. This reasoning takes for granted that there is a “functional” relation among different methods of dissonance reduction: with the same conditions, the simpler method will be used and, after having used one, it will be likely that the other ones will not be used. This is the theory in a nutshell. In this context cognitive dissonance is considered a strategic feature in terms of motivation for behaviour. The subject wants to preserve his/her state of internal “cognitive” tranquillity. His/her different mental models connected to a specific part of reality must be able to “speak” without raising conflicts. The hypothesis of cognitive harmony is rather striking and it is useful in representing the almost “physical” sense of the coherent relationship between cognitive groups in a concrete way.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, MOTIVATION AND LEARNING Now let us try to reformulate our hypothesis on the relationship between cognitive dissonance, motivation and learning. In every training programme there is always an inertial force which concretely opposes the learner’s cognitive change and integration of new mental models with one or more functional behavioural patterns. This force has two essential dimensions: ƒ what we call the “absolute weight” (in order to extend your knowledge on the concept of “absolute weight” see Loi and Ronsivalle, 2005 and Ronsivalle, 2005a) of the content structure which constitutes the object of the training programme. It comes from the combination of the “semantic density” of the final knowledge system that is the number of terms and concepts which will constitute the new learner’s “vocabulary” - and the “complexity level” of the relationships among the constituent elements of the final mental model (Bloom B.S. et al., 1972); ƒ the “learning resistance” that, as already stated, depends on the relationship of consonance or dissonance between the subject and the information of the training programme (according to the behavioural patterns which constitute the practical application of this information), and on the general way in which the learner learns and organises new information, represents and communicates his/her mental models, and relates to the different training delivery methods. The distinction between “absolute weight” and “learning resistance” is fundamental. The first factor depends on content analysis and it is closely related to the substantia of the knowledge system. Therefore, it is a constant of a specific mental model in any reference system, having affinity with the participants. This affinity is due to common functional need. In the case of the training programme on the new banking procedure, as all bank managers share the

36

same profiles and tasks, one could predict that they will develop the same behavioural patterns in relation to the newly acquired information. This means that they will be exposed to the same structure of information and will have to develop similar competencies in relation to the complexity level. On the other hand, in the process, the factor of variability depends on the different learning resistance of each learner or group of learners; in fact, the learning resistance depends mainly on meta-cognitive variables and then, on the level of consonance of the initial mental model with the various behavioural patterns connected to it. As already stated, in our opinion, the most relevant scope of application of the theory consists of the impact of the cognitive dissonance on the dynamics of voluntary exposition to information. According to Festinger, the lack of motivation to the voluntary exposition (or to the lack of exposition) to information represents the total absence of cognitive dissonance. The relationship between the subject and the source of information is characterised by simple indifference and “non-connection” between the information and his/her sphere of behaving. In these cases the learning resistance is high: it is convenient for the learner not to disturb his/her own state of tranquillity. Only when faced with a state of cognitive dissonance is the subject encouraged to look for and select potentially consonant information in order to reduce the dissonance and/or to avoid the information that could make it increase. The selection of information significantly depends on the ability of the subject to evaluate sources (and expectations) and define the future possibilities in a more or less rigorous way. This last point is very important: the level of motivation to the voluntary exposition to potentially consonant information depends on the possibility to compare the expectations with the already acquired information, but also to check and quantify the probability of “connection” and consonance. In other words, when defining the expectations on the information with which the subject will come into contact, the way of representing this same information in relation to significant dissonant cognitive elements plays a fundamental role.

Let us rethink our previous example on the training programme about the new banking procedure. A good motivating strategy could consist of designing the storyboard with an initial introduction presenting various concrete study cases. These cases represent the application of the old procedure and highlight many practical critical features with negative effects for the learner’s professional dimension. The creation of cognitive dissonance could be followed by the demonstration that the training programme contains information connected to the problems at hand which could solve them. This demonstration could be composed of a negative case of application of the old procedure and of a positive case with the new procedure solving the previous problems. This could be functional in order to obtain the voluntary subject’s exposition to information and to create a stable relationship with the sources and the logic of the process, in relation to the connection with behavioural patterns concerning the relevant aspects of the learner’s everyday life. Cognitive dissonance management cannot be indiscriminate. The micro-designer of this training programme will have to consider the differences among participants in terms of learning resistance. The definition of a flexible and modular instructional strategy will be the result of an analysis of the different kinds of “cognitive attitudes” in relation to the training programme. Alternatively, the non-selective application of the same strategy could lead to the failure of the course, thereby destroying the mechanism and fostering the initial level of cognitive dissonance. SCHEMES FOR DISSONANCE MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMME PERSONALISATION: A PRACTICAL APLLICATION OF THE THEORY One of the possible practical applications of this thesis consists in the design of e-learning systems capable of dynamically and automatically personalising training programmes for large amount of learners. In fact, this application allows us to analyse and solve many problems caused by the need for efficient and effective designing and managing of training programmes according to factors which describe the learner’s cognitive state in relation to a 37

specific structure of contents. As we have said before, these factors can be combined to form the complex variable of “learning resistance”. In order to achieve this objective it is necessary to distinguish two different meanings of the concept of the “personalisation” of a training programme. At a first general level, “personalisation” is the possibility to change the sequence in which Learning Objects are assembled and presented to the learner after measuring his/her initial knowledge system. This kind of personalisation is very common. Moreover, most international technological standards aim at the management of this first level of flexibility. From a methodological point of view, to support this kind of personalisation one just needs to design an accurate evaluation system, closely related to the structure of learning objectives. The initial questionnaire should aim at (a) measuring the learner knowledge system; (b) selecting the Learning Objects dealing with the information the learner does not know, as revealed by the test outcome; and (c) dynamically changing their sequence of presentation. A second and more sophisticated level of personalisation allows us to organise information and dynamically differentiate the means of presentation of the single Learning Object, in order to find the best way to oppose the learning resistance. To manage this second kind of personalisation we need to define a modular instructional strategy. It consists of a series of application schemes for content presentation in each Learning Object storyboard. These schemes do not concern the sequence in which information is assembled and do not directly depend on the kind of content. With reference to the different levels of learning resistance, they can be considered as out-and-out algorithms for the effective distribution and management of cognitive dissonance according to the course fruition time. The following are four different schemes for dissonance management that we have used for various e-learning projects both in banking and insurance fields: - Quaestio model; - Negative case; - reductio ad absurdum; - sic et non. 38

The quaestio model allows us to manage the light dissonance and it is mainly related to the exposition of a theoretical system in cases of low learning resistance. When adopting this application scheme it is necessary to organise contents according to the following sequence of steps: 1. Prologue: elaboration of some questions that introduce the problem in a critical manner in order to define the dimension of the problem, arouse interest and motivate learners through the introduction of light dissonant elements. 2. Learners’ involvement: the learners’ participation is stimulated by means of one or more interactions. The purposes are to define the problem together with the learners and in relation to their experience, to monitor their reaction to the questions and to restrict the meaning of the problem. 3. Thesis: use of a concept map which shows all the different logical correlations in order to identify the solution to the problem and start the process of integration of the new information. 4. Real case: the concept map is taken back and the abstract entities are replaced by the entities of the example. One aims at defining the scope of the solution in the practice, ending the integration process and defining the scope of consonance. In this phase additional support devices are activated. 5. Learners’ involvement: once again the learners are stimulated to participate by means of one or more interactions to identify other examples or scopes of application. The purposes are to monitor the perception of the suggested solution for its subsequent personalisation, and to check the new state of the system and the changes that have occurred. In this phase other additional support devices are activated. 6. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is shown again as a synthesis of what was stated before and then there is a question left in suspense. This phase aims at showing and defining the logical connection with the following step. The negative case model allows us to manage a higher level of dissonance and it is mainly related to the exposition of an information system in cases of medium-high learning resistance.

When adopting this application scheme it is necessary to organise contents according to the following sequence of steps: 1. Prologue: presentation of a negative case that is very similar to the participants’ possible experiences. One aims at defining the dimension of the problem in a critical manner, arousing interest and motivating learners through the introduction of dissonant elements. 2. Learners’ involvement: the learners’ participation is stimulated by means of one or more interactions. This phase aims at defining the different aspects of the problem together with the learners, and in relation to their experience and monitoring the dissonance level. 3. Anticipation: demonstration that the answer to the problem requires the acquisition of new information which could be acquired by the learners through the present course. 4. Thesis: introduction of a series of connected arguments aiming at solving the problem, in order to introduce some thesis for support and start the process of integration of new information. 5. Positive case: the same previous case (or another similar one) is proposed again with the application of new knowledge in order to achieve a positive outcome. This phase aims at defining the scope of application of the proposed thesis, ending the process of integration and defining the scope of consonance. 6. Learners’ involvement: once again learners are stimulated to participate through one or more interactions. One aims at identifying other examples or scopes of application, monitoring the perception of the suggested solution for its subsequent personalisation, and checking the new state of the system and the changes that have occurred. In this phase additional support devices are activated. 7. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is shown again with a synthesis of what was said before; then there is a question left in suspense. This phase aims at showing and defining the logical connection with the following step. The reductio ad absurdum model allows us to manage a high dissonance level and it is mainly related to the analysis of two theories and the overcoming of the first one.

The adoption of this application model is effective in cases of medium learning resistance and requires the content to be organised according to the following sequence of steps: 1. Prologue: description of two theories, A and B, where B is the one we support. The purpose is to describe the two theories and to define the theoretical reference background. 2. Comparative analysis: analysis of the merits and faults of the two theories in order to describe their practical consequences and prepare the ground for dissonance. 3. Learners’ involvement: the learners’ participation is stimulated by means of one or more interactions. This phase aims at integrating the different aspects of the problem in relation to the learners’ experience. 4. Anticipation: communication of the fact that the answer to the problem requires the acquisition of new information. This phase aims at introducing the element in doubt, by bringing the dissonance device to completion. 5. Reductio ad absurdum: demonstration that the adoption of theory A is much more complex than B. The purpose is to orient the learner and describe such an extremely dissonant future background that it will be ruled out when compared with a much more consonant one. 6. Reductio ad absurdum – real case: definition of a case and reinforcement of the thesis of the negativity deriving from the application of A instead of B, in order to give practical hints about the comparison and reinforce the option B. 7. Learners’ involvement: learners are stimulated to participate through one or more interactions. One aims at monitoring the perception of the suggested solution for its subsequent personalisation, and checking the new state of the system and the changes that have occurred. 8. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is shown again with a synthesis of what was said before; then, there is a question left in suspense. This phase aims at showing and defining the logical connection with the following step. The sic et non model allows us to manage a higher dissonance level in every case of high learning resistance. This algorithm is mainly related to the criticism of a specific theory or point of view.

39

When adopting this application scheme it is necessary to organise contents according to the following sequence of steps: 1. Prologue: description of a thesis that will be dismantled in order to describe the theory A, for example, and to define the theoretical reference background. 2. Learners’ involvement: the learners’ participation is stimulated by means of questions and interactions. This phase aims at defining the different aspects of the problem in relation to the learners’ experience. 3. Anticipation: communication of the fact that the answer to the problem requires the acquisition of new information. This phase aims at introducing the element in doubt, by leading the class to the sic et non. 4. Sic et non: the merits and faults of the theory are analysed by using a concept map, and always ends with an element in favour of theory A. This phase aims at describing the logical and practical consequences of the theory, and producing dissonance. 5. Learners’ involvement: learners are stimulated to participate through one or more interactions. One aims to collect other elements of analysis on the theory (it is useful to ask learners to produce a concept map about it). This phase aims to check the evolution state of the system and orient the criticism of the theory. 6. Criticism: there is the “killing blow” to the theory, by demonstrating its incoherence through the application of a practical case. This phase aims at giving the learners the means to criticise the theory by describing extremely dissonant future backgrounds as consequences of its adoption. 7. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is shown again with a synthesis of what was said before; then, there is a question left in suspense. This phase aims at showing and defining the logical connection with the following step. After developing the different application schemes, it is necessary to define the strategic objectives of the training programme. Based on these objectives, the different means of presentation will be implemented and it will be possible to measure the level of learning resistance for each learner. The initial assessment tool will give us information on (a) the learner’s initial knowledge system (the initial assessment tool should permit the 40

measurement of complex behavioural patterns, too. To this purpose structured or semi-structured tests could not be sufficient. In these cases, simulation is the ideal assessment tool because it allows emphasis of the pragmatic dimension of the learner’s knowledge. On this subject see Ronsivalle, 2005); (b) the subject areas to which the learner is most resistant, according to a comparative analysis of the results obtained by the whole population or a significant sample; and (c) the most critical content clusters. These clusters will be the strategic objectives on which one will adopt the different application schemes. How can we measure learning resistance by means of a questionnaire? A privileged index consists of the relationship between learning time and assessment results. The difference between measured time and expected time allows us to deduce the learning resistance level for each subject area. This obviously requires a design model capable of making reliable forecasts on learning time for the different clusters of learners. At this point after the system elaboration, the information can be sent to the Learning Management System which will be able to set up the personalised training programmes for the different learners automatically. This is possible due to the internal instructions directed toward the single Learning Object and aiming to set up the application of the scheme for dissonance management (a more sophisticated version of the personalising system could plan, in itinere, more check points for the resistance, in order to permit dynamic changes of the parameter “resistance”). CONCLUSION The definition of a theoretical framework and the creation of a series of algorithms for micro-design do not limit the possibilities of development related to our theses hereby expressed. Five fundamental questions remain: (1) The Cognitive Dissonance theory implies different special techniques for dissonance reduction. In particular, from the first publication of Festinger’s study, many other pieces of research have followed on the calculation of dissonance. The possibility to calculate dissonance obviously

requires the identification of specific assessment techniques and a proper scale of measurement. (2) Every scheme for dissonance management does not impose a particular way of storyboard writing but simply provides a hint to identify the best strategy to present information. In other words, the algorithm represents an initial draft helping the micro-designer to execute his/her “instructional intentions”. The storyboarder’s craft is another factor, composed of a particular writing and narrative style, the specific communication accent and the art of combining the various media. These “ingredients” require a separate study. (3) Throughout various professional experiences, we had to manage the “learning resistance” during the design phase. From these occasions we realised that the identification of this variable is not simple at all, because at that point it is concentrated in a single parameter of many heterogeneous factors that cannot be assimilated in a single index or qualitative label. A further possibility for development of this subject could consist of the future representation of the variable in vector terms: here, the various dimensions could be represented by the values associated to the previously suggested parameters. (4) In the previous points there is a more pressing matter: the translation of the different indeces into “numbers”. The introduction of a quantitative integrated model constitutes the fundamental premise to implement the dynamic management system of e-learning programmes. The difficulties related to an instructional vocabulary that is written in numbers and mathematical functions depend on the assessment and evaluation techniques, but also on monitoring systems of fruition time. (5) In this study we just skimmed over a very important question for learning design, that is the time dimension of learning. Some recently published essays (Loi and Ronsivalle, 2005; Ronsivalle, 2005a) deal with this subject and mainly highlight the strategic value of the learning time calculation in training programmes involving large amounts of learners. In our method, the expected time of learning is conditioned by (a) the quantity of information that will be visualised and memorised - the variable of the semantic density, with reference to the concept of schemata -, and (b) complexity level of the

relationships between the concepts, with reference to the Bloom taxonomy and to the concept of semantic network. In accordance with this model, every mental model may be represented as a bidimensional vector, whose components are the semantic density and the complexity level. The integration of these variables (the normalization of the vector) determines the absolute weight (W) of that system of information (s). Two further steps will be necessary to formulate a reliable forecast about the learning time relating to s: (a) the definition of a multidimensional vector that includes the variables characterising the students’ group, that is the “learning resistance” (R); (b) the composition of W(s) with R. With reference to our theses, an interesting connection between “learning resistance” and “temporal dimension” emerges: the “learning time” is the fundamental resource the learner brings into play in order to overcome learning resistance. This means that if we properly manage the cognitive dissonance, we succeed in reducing the resistance, with a subsequent reduction in the fruition and learning times and with a strong impact on the training effectiveness index. The relationship between these elements is not an inescapable need, but it has been checked throughout our different projects. In the following years this subject will be necessarily studied again. REFERENCES Bee, F.e, R. (2003). Learning Needs Analysis and Evaluation . 2nd edition. Cipd House: London. Bloom, B.S. et al. (1972). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Longman.: New York and London. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4). Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th edition, Routledge Falmer: New York. Cowan, J. (1985). Effectiveness and efficiency in higher education. Higher Education, 14. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Ill: Row Peterson. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge: University Press. Kagan, J. (2002). Surprise, Uncertainty and Mental Structures. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

41

Loi, M. and Ronsivalle, G. B. (2005). A Particular Aspect of Cost Analysis in Distance Education: Time. In Eden 2005 Annual Conference Proceedings, 2005, 167-172. Mager, R.F. (1975). Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto, CA.: Fearon. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept maps™ as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC. Quine, W.v.O. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia. Petri, H.L. and Govern, J.M. (2004). Motivation. Thomson Wadsworth. Pintrich, P.R. and Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in Education. Merril Prentice Hall. Romiszowski, A.J. (1999). Designing Instructional Systems. 7th edition. London: Kogan Page. Russel, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University. Ronsivalle, G. B. (2002). Automa in the Looking-Glass. Self-Consciousness, Epigenetic Development and Mental Models Theory. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ronsivalle, G. B. (2005a). “Tiempo” y “eficacia” en la evaluación del e-learning. Universidad ARCIS, Santiago de Chile, 3-14. Ronsivalle, G. B. (2005b). Simulare la complessità: sistemi dinamici e reti decisionali nei percorsi di apprendimento. In E-learning & Knowledge Management . Anno II. No.7, 2005, 58-68. Schramm W. (1977). Big Media Little Media. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY G. BRUNO RONSIVALLE (1972) has a degree in Music (1993), a degree in Philosophy (1997), a Post-graduate Specialisation in Didactics of Human Sciences (1998), a Ph.D. in Philosophy and Fundaments of Physics (1999), a Master’s degree in Digital Design (2000) and a Post-graduate Specialisation in Instructional Design (2001). Since 2003 he has led the Evaluation Systems Research Group of ABIFormazione (Italian Banking Association, Roma, Italy) and he has been R&D Manager at the E-learning Division of Didagroup SpA (Roma, Italy) and Dida America (Barcelona, Spain). At present he is the Educational Coordinator of the Master’s degree course in Instructional Design at Arcis University (Santiago de Chile), he collaborates with ABI Sicurezza (Security) and with Italian Criminalpol for the creation of a predictive model based on neural network for the Bank Robbery Risk Management. He has been involved in 42

many national, European and international research and development projects for the application of elearning standards and advanced assessment models to the banking, industrial, medical, educational and communication fields. Some publications: “Montaigne’s Automaton” (Catania, 1998) “Alcune riflessioni sui fondamenti psicologici delle scienza storico-sociali. Pareto e il principio di complementarietà” (Catania, 1999) "Discorso sull'apparente contrasto tra i realisti e i sostenitori della Scuola di Copenhagen" (Urbino, 2000) "Automata in the Looking-glass. Self-consciousness, Epigenetic Development and Mental Models Theory" (Krakow, 2002) "Tempo ed efficacia nella valutazione dell'elearning" (Roma, 2004) "Simulare la complessità: sistemi dinamici e reti decisionali nei percorsi di apprendimento" (Roma, 2005) "A Particular Aspect of Cost Analysis in Distance Education: Time" (Helsinki, 2005) "La relazione tra crediti ECM e ore di formazione" (Roma, 2005) VANESSA METUS (1978) has an Italian degree in Multimedia Science and Technology. Since 2001 she has been working in the e-learning sector. From the beginning of 2005 she has operated within the Research & Development Area of Didagroup SpA (Rome), one of the leading companies in the Italian e-learning market. She has been involved in many national, European and international research and development projects for the application of e-learning standards and advanced assessment models to the banking, industrial, medical, educational and communication fields. Her activity is mainly focused on evaluation systems, macro- and micro- design models in education, simulations based on dynamic systems, semantic web and Learning Management System. As a lecturer she has taken part in several international conferences and seminars (recently the "Eden Conference" in Helsinki with a paper on "A Particular Aspect of Cost Analysis in Distance Education: Time").

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TELES: AN ELEARNING PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE Mário Figueira Associate Partner Novabase Blackboard partner for Portugal Lisbon Portugal E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Contents, eLearning market, evaluation, implementation framework, instructional design, knowledge sharing, learning management systems, Self-regulated earning (SRL), Technology Enhanced Learning Environment (TELE), networked learning environment, TELE-SRL tool, tutors. ABSTRACT Information technology is everywhere in our lives and there are a lot of different technologies available to enhance learning experiences. This article identifies the path to a Networked Learning Environment, the highest level of a TELE, in five different phases. The SRL has an important role in the two main steps to creating the Networked Learning Environment, first as a strategy, and second as a tool. The reasons why organisations like selfregulated processes are also mentioned. The article identifies the conclusions of the TELE-SRL tool applied to the evaluation of AprendernaNet project. This is a blended learning project for industry with more than 2000 learners in 2004/2005. The evaluation outputs showed the importance of the three AprendernaNet TELE components: the Learning Management System (LMS), the contents and the tutors. The role of the three different components in each SRL dimension (cognitive, emotional, motivational and social) is also discussed in the article. Special reference is made to the contents’

instructional design based on role-plays, simulations and case studies. HOW IMPORTANT IS SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN ORGANISATIONS? Technology is Everywhere Nowadays technology is everywhere. We can find IT in music, in communication, in the workplace, and at home: • In music, the mp3 players are changing our way of storing and listening to music; • In communications, the new pda-phones are increasing mobility and people are “always connected”; • In the workplace, the laptops and small computers are everywhere; • At home and families, the playstations and computers are occupying the field. The use of IT in education and learning is growing year by year. The number of computers in schools and universities is growing and the students, the learners, are asking more and more for technology enhanced learning environments. eLearning is now becoming part of the learning process in Universities, companies and governmental bodies. There are a lot of different technologies available to enhance learning experiences. Some technologies are

43

Exploratory

Supported

Strategic

Mission Critical

Transformative: The Networked Learning Environment

Institutional Growth • Course web sites

• Commercial enterprise course management system

• Online courses, organizations, and institutional services integrated with back-office systems

Phase 2

Phase I

Phase 3

• A full online campus with learning communities and shared digital content resources Phase 4

• A true networked learning environment exists when any student or teacher can view learning content, collaborate with educators, evaluate academic performance, and access any institutional or peer resource at any time to achieve their educational objectives Phase 5

Time Figure 1: Path to the Networked Learning Environment more mature and others are just starting. Regarding the eLearning technologies (Gartner, 2004), we will find the courseware and the embedded just-in-time learning reaching a plateau of productivity in less than two years. The Learning Management System (LMS), the application simulation tools and the web conferencing are in the slope of enlightenment with between two and five years until their plateau. The Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), the eLearning suites and the virtual classrooms are in the trough of disillusionment phase. The mobile eLearning and the simulation tools are now the technology triggers climbing to the peak of expectations. Why organisations like self-? From the organisational perspective, we can identify five phases to reaching the highest level of a TELE (Technology Enhanced Learning Environment). A TELE will be developed from an exploratory phase to a Networked Learning Environment according to figure 1.

44

A TELE will be completely embedded in the organisation when the transformative phase is reached. There are two important steps in this path to a Networked Learning Environment. One is when the technology for eLearning is integrated with the organisation’s backoffice systems. The other is when the technology is used by everyone inside the organisation and the culture of knowledge sharing among learning communities is there. Self-regulated learning (SRL) can play a special role as a strategy to build a framework for integrating processes between the online courses running inside the organisation, the institutional services and the federation of the different organisations. As an example we can see one University with two faculties and some online courses in one of the faculties. They already have a portal where learners can access institutional services (registrations, gradebook, subscription fees, etc.). SRL strategies can help to build the framework of integration processes to have an online campus, where the learning experiences live together with the institutional services.

On other hand, SRL can be used as a tool to develop the creation of learning communities, one of the key points to the second step in creating the Networked Learning Environment. The cognitive, emotional, motivational and social components of SRL are dimensions to be managed in the creation of the knowledge sharing culture inside the organisation. Industry is interested in self-regulated learning as a tool to develop competitiveness based on human capital because: • Companies need to reduce costs; • Knowledge is developed by informal and formal learning experiences; • Self-regulated learning increases employee engagement in the learning process and supplies just in time support in their jobs. Self-regulated learning could be used in an individual or group learning experience. It needs to have a mature organisation, where a knowledge sharing culture exists. This is the reason why it is so important to understand the different phases from the figure 1. IS THE TELE-SRL TOOL ADEQUATE TO EVALUATE SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TELES? Novabase applied the TELE-SRL tool in the TELE AprendernaNet based on Blackboard Academic Suite technology and found the tool very useful.

AprendernaNet is a learning portal where more than 2000 learners in 2004/2005 had their first eLearning experiences. The available courses are: Introduction to eLearning; Training the Tutors for eLearning and How to develop eLearning contents. AprendernaNet methodology is blended learning based on selflearning, tutor lead and classroom learning experiences. The application of the TELE-SRL evaluation tool to AprendernaNet identified the following conclusions: 1. General impressions of the TELE The TELE provides the most significant features of a true Networked Learning Environment, based on knowledge sharing through communities of practice with emphasis on collaboration. The learner can follow his/her learning progress and the interaction with peers and tutor is very high. The TELE provides constant feedback regarding the learner’s performance and progress. The learner has his/her own area within which he/she can plan his/her activities. All the aspects (cognitive, motivational, emotional and social aspects) are considered in this TELE. The usability strength is facilitated by a very user friendly interface and navigation process. 2. Factors that contribute to the strength of the TELE: • Anytime, anywhere access • Evaluation and learner feedback management • Student-centred learning • Social aspects of executing and monitoring • Content management and collaboration features 3. Factors that represent weaknesses of the TELE: The cognitive aspects based on feedback/evaluation features available. 4. Suggestions for improving the TELE: Improve the cognitive aspects in evaluation. The students should be able to know their exact state of achievement and compare this with expectations.

Figure 2: AprendernaNet Learning Portal (www.aprendernanet.com)

This evaluation based on the TELE-SRL tool showed the importance of contents, tutor coaching and system (LMS) usability and features. These three pillars of 45

AprendernaNet TELE gave an important contribution to the three stages of SRL (planning, executing/monitoring and evaluating) and the four dimensions (cognitive, emotional, motivational and social). The system usability and features provide learners the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Adaptive release Personal information management Discussion board Virtual classroom / collaboration tool Group projects Assessments and surveys Assignments Gradebook Reporting and performance dashboard Community building tools Channels / modules Role-based information delivery Collaborative web-enabled file storage e-Portfolios Workflow Multi-language support

The tutor coaching in the learning process is particularly important in the executing and monitoring stage, especially in social and motivational aspects. The tutors have an important job in creating self-regulated skills in learners, especially on the first levels of the path to the Networked Learning Environment.

on learner reactions to the different situations proposed by the content is very important to re-design or optimise the instructional design in order to create SRL skills in the workforce. The professional experience of the learners is usually used in the content test phase. In this phase, a group of employees test the course content and give feedback to the instructional designer. One of the objectives of this phase is to create the “content autonomy” building SRL skills in the workforce. Some course content examples:

Figure 3: Role-play (Courtesy of Caixa Geral de Depósitos).

Another conclusion is the importance of the content for the self-regulated learning environments. In these environments, content is a real KING. The content can “embed the tutor” and give feedback and guide the learner toward assuming an important role in the cognitive and emotional aspects of SRL, and in the three different stages. SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD In the main corporate and public administration eLearning projects that we are involved in, that are focused on the workforce skills development, the content has the most important role in the learning environment. The role-plays, simulations and case studies are the foundations of the content instructional design. The permanent feedback based 46

Figure 4: How to use a software (Courtesy of Ministério das Finanças) .

CONCLUSIONS Self-regulated learning is an important trend in the corporate and education markets. The use of this concept follows the path to the Networked Learning Environment.

Figure 5: New internal process (Courtesy of Ministério das Finanças).

Figure 6: Learning game (Courtesy of AprendernaNet - Novabase).

A TELE is based on three components: the learning management system (LMS); the contents and the tutors. All these components have a specific role in the planning, executing/monitoring and evaluating stages, and on the cognitive, emotional, motivational and social dimensions. The LMS has a transversal influence on the learning process; acting has a “learning operating system”. The tutors are especially involved in the social dimension, with an important role also in the motivational aspects, but it would be wrong to say that the tutors are not involved in cognitive and emotional aspects. The contents play an important role in the cognitive and emotional aspects. The self-regulated learning (SRL) is a balance, a trade-off, between these three components according to the specific needs of the organisation and the current learning culture. The Telepeers consortium assumes an important role in the dissemination of this concept. In order to help organisations starting or improving SRL in TELEs, it is very useful to have an implementation framework to follow. This will be an important output of this consortium to the market. The application of the SRL concept in organisations should be tested in cooperation with the Telepeers consortium, industry and public administration, in order to achieve an implementation framework of this concept. REFERENCES Gartner. (2004). Hype Cycle for Corporate eLearning 2004. Research Report G00120926, Gartner Inc, Stamford, USA (June). AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Figure 7: Role-play (Courtesy of Banco BPI).

MÁRIO FIGUEIRA was born in Évora, Portugal and went to the New University of Lisbon (FCT/UNL), where he studied Industrial Production Engineering and obtained his degree in 1990. He did a post-graduate diploma in Developing Entrepreneurship in SMEs at Durham University in the UK. He is Associate Partner at Novabase, a leading IT company in Portugal, is CEO of SAF47

Sistemas Avançados de Formação, the eLearning company of Novabase group, and is the Portuguese partner of Blackboard. He is now leading several projects in eLearning and Human Capital Management in large companies, Universities and public administration. In the past he was training director of ISQ-Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade and CIFAG (Management Training Centre). He is author of several resources for technology enhanced learning published by IEFP, ISQ, IAPMEI. Recently INOFOR published his book, ‘Guide for Design of eLearning Contents’. He is an invited teacher at Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa and Universidade Católica Portuguesa. He regularly publishes articles in Portuguese newspapers and magazines and is member of the editorial board of Nov@Formação, a specialised magazine on new ways of learning published by IQF.

48

About Novabase Established in 1989, Novabase is one of the leading IT companies in Portugal. With an average number of 1287 employees in the first nine months of 2005, Novabase has two business divisions: Novabase Consulting (includes IT Consulting, Systems Integration and Application Outsourcing) and Novabase Engineering Solutions (includes IT Infrastructures, Interactive TV, Ticketing, Access Control, Telecommunications Products and Infrastructures Outsourcing). Novabase has been listed in the Euronext Lisbon since July 2000. More information about Novabase is available at www.novabase.pt.

TOWARDS AN INDUSTRY UPTAKE OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING LukVervennne Managing Director Synergetics NV Antwerp Belgium Email : [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS

INTRODUCTION

Competency, context, corporate learning, ontology, Self-regulated Learning (SRL)

Combine competencies and lifelong learning and what you get is a strong foundation for the final countdown of enterprise based self-regulated learning

ABSTRACT In this contribution, I will argue that for companies, time2competencies will soon be much more important than time2market. Acquisition of relevant competencies is part of a process of lifelong learning and could be greatly facilitated by a self-regulated learning approach . To develop this argument, I will first have a look at the eLearning scene in Europe and point out some factors that have been obstacles to the growth of an eLearning market and than point out others that might spur this growth. In particular, I will discuss requirements that need to be met if self-regulated learning is to become relevant to the ad hoc business process situation. I will conclude by presenting suggestions for a common occupational context model which could be applied to self-regulated learning and be shared by industry, education and employment services

Competencies are increasingly being used in education, industry and public employment services. Such competencies are in fact becoming the “common currency of the labor market” at large. And although there is currently no working ‘lifelong competency framework’, competencies nevertheless are an inherent part of ‘lifelong learning’ and its related IMS ePortfolio 1.0 standard. Combine the idea of user driven lifelong learning with competencies and it is clear that the employee/learner might be on the way to finally becoming more aware and hopefully also more in control of his own career planning. For companies this will have a serious impact on how corporate training and employee learning is put into practice. The EU IST research program is not exactly waiting for this to happen, and recently awarded several proposals that will research this learn@work paradigm. The IST Prolix Integrated Project (starting December 1st 2005) for instance, will research and implement a method to link people & processes, examining how corporate learning can be continuously adapted to an employee’s ever changing work environment. 49

ELEARNING’S SECOND USER IN CONTROL

CHANCE:

THE

eLearning in Europe was predicted to provide large opportunities for growth for the eLearning market in both Europe and the US (Barcelona AG, 2001, “Wachstumsmarkt e-learning“). Nevertheless, eLearning services in Europe still remain limited in scope and are not widely used in corporate training. In the corporate world, eLearning remains limited to larger companies that can either afford to buy expensive company-adapted eLearning solutions or by setting up internal corporate training organisations. In light of this high cost, SMEs in particular only have a minimal adoption rate of eLearning even though they are in desperate need of (continuously) educated employees to successfully compete in the ever-changing global markets. Another main obstacle is the lack of integration of systems, technologies and services along the eLearning value chain. Especially for learning at the workplace, there is currently no seamless coupling of learning processes with ongoing work and business processes. Today, the planning and execution of learning processes is not linked, let alone integrated with those of work or business processes. Instead, human resource managers must identify gaps in their employee’s education with rather awkward simple methods, supported only by basic tools and without a proper educational or corporate context. This leads to ineffective training with no or only basic ongoing learning at the workplace, leaving companies as well as their employees with only very limited success in technology enhanced learning applications. This status is rather surprising as, from the company perspective, integrating utility learning should be accepted easily, because it enables the cost-effective simple identification of training needs, the monitoring and control of the company profile development and the flexible management of the company’s knowledge portfolio. And these criteria are just the major success indicators for companies in fast changing global markets. 50

Taking the employee’s perspective, the aligning business and learning processes will enable employees to improve their skills and performance at the workplace in a verifiable and provable manner. By enhancing and broadening their skills they become even more valuable assets on the job market enabling them to apply for new and even better paid positions, securing their job, etc. In order to create a learning paradigm capable of significantly improving employee performance in the workplace, employees should be able to learn directly at their workplace when the need for education is identified. The delay between identification of a learning need and the actual learning should not be minimal. Furthermore, the learning material must be targeted to the learner’s individual learning style and behaviour. Only by providing the necessary means to learning in the workplace will corporate organisations be able to react quickly, cost-effectively and successfully in today’s fast changing markets, where for the services economy, time2competency is becoming more important than time2market. One idea is to develop an open, integrated reference architecture for process-oriented learning and information exchange. The overall objective would be to improve the performance of employees in their workplace, where learning is driven by the business processes in which employees are involved. An alignment of individual and organisational learning with business tasks and processes will ensure the integration of technology-based learning into the operational business world. In order to support such a complete corporate selfregulated learning process life cycle the following elements should/could be essential: 1. The analysis of complex business situations; 2. The identification of individual and organisational learning goals; 3. The analysis of competencies and their match with individual skills; 4. The definition of appropriate learning strategies & the simulation of learning processes; 5. The execution of improved learning processes; 6. The monitoring of learners’ performance according to the defined goals.

In order for self-regulated learning to become relevant to the ad hoc business process situation, more attention is needed to make content ad hoc, meaningful and contextualised. Semantic descriptions for instance could enable an improved context-sensitive exchange of business process execution and an employee’s specific learning and/or information needs. THE LEARNER IN THE DRIVING SEAT Just as with competencies, the IMS ePortfolio standard also came out of the elearning domain, but is now also heading to a more central position in society somewhere in the midst of education, industry and employment services. It is no coincidence that the ePortfolio 2006 conference will have “ePortfolio’s and the labour market” as one of its main topics. In a way ePortfolio’s can be considered as the digital home of self-regulated learning. Being a place where the learner can develop, steer, track and present their personal development and growth, ePortfolio’s are inevitably bound to spur selfregulated learning, if only by the fact that they provide a management instrument for the learner who wants to get a grip on his/her learning. Combined with competencies this allows for a good environment in which corporate learning can shift to more self-regulation. Take the Dutch situation for instance, where the vocational education is now swapping to competency driven education on a national scale. By 2008 hundreds of thousands of competency profiles will stream to the market. It is unlikely that these young employees who worked for years on their competencies, often using ePortfolio’s, will suddenly drop this paradigm. Instead the corporate world should embrace this and provide for an environment where the employee can keep developing his/her employability.

themselves, once provided with an appropriate learning infrastructure, could align their processoriented learning with their overall career paths. As mentioned this vision is currently the topic of several larger research projects of the IST program. It could also be the motor of a knowledge economy where government, corporate and learners are all working to promote self-regulated lifelong learning. In fact lifelong learning can ONLY work through self-regulated learning. There simply are not enough tutors (nor should there be) to provide for Instructor led training. This however poses some serious challenges for how organisations and learners can define a shared environment (read: learning platform) which allows organisations and learners alike to define, agree and share goals and objectives. For the organisations it is imperative that they are able to translate their strategies into business and work processes and the competencies needed to run these processes. This is especially true for the knowledge and services economy where time2competency will be much more important than time2market. With change being the only certainty in these types of economies, any organisational support system will need to be able to adapt ‘ad hoc’ to the everchanging processes and their required organisational and worker competencies. This is where and why we see self-regulated corporate learning prevail. In such agile environments, it is imperative for organisations that strategy can be immediately translated into action and consequently into the learning, in order to act swiftly and effectively.

All would stand to profit from such a situation: corporate organisations could help to indicate their competency needs, as business processes and even the corporate strategy itself can indeed be expressed in competencies.

Organisations will therefore seek to hire workers with real learning competencies, and on the other hand will need to provide them with enough incentives to learn by offering them a lifelong learning opportunity, besides on-the-job-learning. Being able to attract the best, learning oriented, candidates might in fact prove to be an important factor in whether organisations will be successful or not.

The traditional training departments however would need to gradually change into facilitators, providing guidance to self-regulated learners. The learners

Employees on the other hand will seek jobs where this required learning is well organised, available at all times and above all context-relevant and self51

regulated. Furthermore, they will also seek learning that is benefiting more than just the organisation’s immediate needs, but can also accommodate their own ‘lifelong’ career planning. With such goal ‘symbiosis’ between corporate and employee, we are a long way from the traditional corporate training department which decides on what, when and how workers are trained. The symbiosis model described above uses a far more balanced perspective, where corporate and worker both benefit from the common goal of a temporary collaboration. From this perspective, the absence of the European labour unions in this debate is remarkable. Union politics aside, it would seem natural that after years of defending the interests of the working class at large, labour unions would follow the individualisation of society by offering better career/learning support for the individual employee. SELF-REGULATED CHALLENGES AHEAD However, the ‘positivist’ symbiosis model for selfregulated learning, described above, will face some serious challenges before it even begins to become effective in a corporate environment. One of the main issues is the context-relevance of learning.

All of these topics are currently being researched and have been for some years, but no service oriented architecture (SOA) is available as yet to link all of this in a coherent, standard way. It is reasonable to assume that any such system will be semantic by definition. Adding ‘meaning’ to goals, context and content will be a ‘conditio sine non’ in order to reach a serious foundation for selfregulation to work. 52

This could be overcome by developing a common occupational context model (or a Task Reference Model, as the US Department of Defence calls it) and allowing different organisations to commit differently to this model (thus following ontological principles). Applied to the domain of self-regulated learning therefore, it would be a good idea to further encourage the existing and mature research domains of learning and competencies (and their XMLsyntax standards) to align and cooperate with the semantic community. Below you find an architectural overview of what such a fully-fledged adaptive self-regulated learning system could look like, and in any case would need, in terms of its capability to provide context-aware self-regulated learning services. This SOA pictured below is what the Prolix IP project (2005-2009) will eventually offer as an open standard. Context Ontology (systemic representation of the process/task domain) Company Culture Policies

Learning Goals

Alignment

(Complex Situation)

Competency Requirements

al tic ies ac g id te D tra S

Resource

Learning Scenario Configuration Allocation

Modification

More research is needed in order to produce learning that is both ad hoc, context-relevant and available. The current prevailing constructivist learning objects (IEEE LOM) and content packaging (IMS CP, Scorm2004) paradigm is still somewhat primitive vis-à-vis what is needed to allow for a contextsensitive learning environment that is automated in such a way that the learning environment can decide on (1) its functional offering, (3) learning style support, (2) group and/or individual learning capability, and is (4) seeded with the most relevant content.

As corporate and employee interests differ, it is essential to define a common language and a shared context model in which both corporate strategy and learning@work can be translated. Such a common context model is for instance also being looked at in the field of competencies. Education, industry and employment services are starting to realise that they need a common competency register. The way they perceive and use competencies however, is contextually different.

Di d St iact ra te ical gi e s

Simulation Requirements & Design

an GAP al ys is

Performance Cockpit

Learning Process Execution

Semantic Matching Engine g in or ng yl ni Ta etu hing n tc i F a M

Processing

Execution

Figure 1: the Prolix IP project

Of course not all self-regulated learning research is aiming for this level of technology integration. It would nevertheless be a good idea for the academic self-regulated learning domain to start looking at what level of complexity their achievements and proven theories can be mapped upon the business process driven adaptive learning software architecture described above. Given that a meaningful consensus can be found on how to integrate both research fields, one could assume that finally a foundation is found for the corporate uptake of self-regulated learning.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY LUKE VERVENNE is managing director of Synergetics nv (www.synergetics.be), an Antwerp (Belgium) based innovation company, specialising in competency-based business processes, namely in the Learning and HR domain. He has been involved in several EU projects in the semantics, learning and e-content related IST programs. He is also business development manager for VUB/Starlab (University of Brussels), cofounder of HR-XML Europe, and recently started a global ‘lifelong competency framework’ initiative, which is to align further work on the current competency standards.

53

54

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART B: THE VIEW FROM ACADEMIA

55

56

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: THE VIEW FROM ACADEMIA Jean Underwood Division of Psychology Nottingham Trent University Nottingham United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Cognitive apprenticeship, game playing, learner perception, motivation, self-regulated learning (SRL), skilled performance, Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs). A SYNOPSIS In this section of the proceedings from the Taconet Conference on Self-regulated Learning (SRL) in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) we present four papers focusing on the view from Academia. Our starting point is the role of SRL: both the significance of that role and also issues surrounding SRL when operating in a digital environment. Recent developments in learning styles and in new technologies show a clear synergy. As learning becomes more individualised, learnercentred, situated, collaborative, ubiquitous, and extends across the life-span, new technologies are becoming more personalised, user-centred, mobile, networked, ubiquitous, and durable thus setting the stage for a successful but challenging technology led learning environments. The papers presented here investigate issues surrounding these new ways of learning, which are not necessarily classroom dependent and from which new knowledge emerges through interaction with others. Alongside the main theme of SRL a number of other themes are apparent in these four papers. We start with Antonietti, who raises the interesting question

of what are the goals of any TELE as seen from two perspectives the tutors and the learners. His thesis is that the way a TELE is used (learner) and expected to be used (tutor) will depend on their individual mental models of the TELE. Any major discontinuity in the two sets of perceptions can, and probably will, damage the effectiveness of the TELE. He provides a framework that captures learner needs and realities them to TELE characteristics, which is designed to support tutors and institutions tin selecting TELES that will effectively meet their outcome goals. Underwood and Banyard continue with the theme of individual learner’s response to a TELE by focusing, not so much on the technology, but the degree of SRL that any learner will bring to the learning activity. Firstly they map the antecedents of SRL as it emerged from the debate on self-regulated behaviour. From this beginning they question the degree to which self-regulation is possible in formal educational settings and the equally important issue of whether self-regulation is for all or just a sub-set of able students. This raises the spectre of the Mathew Principle (to them that have will be given). As Nenniger (2005) points out, with all the euphoria surrounding the value of SRL, hard evidence of its impact is drawn almost exclusively from studies whose participants tended to be academically talented, highly educated or skilled learners in more or less academic contexts.

57

A third theme emerging from these papers revolves around issues of motivation and self-regulation and raises the issue of the fun-way to learn. Rüppell presents evidence on the value of educational game playing to learning. He argues that real-time competition tasks have features that promote metacognition and the development of new learning strategies. In this he is part of a movement extolling the virtues of learning from game playing. Rüppell occupies the middle ground of this debate suggesting the putting game playing activities into educational content will produce courses that are both motivating and meaningful. Game playing activities do not have to be confined to educational software. A major debate is now ensuing about the value of commercial video game playing in the development of cognitive and social skills. Johnson (2005) points out that most traditional games such as chess or monopoly provide the underlying rules of the game from the outset, but video games are different in that they withhold information about the underlying rule system. A player is given some opening constraints but subsequently the goals of the games and the techniques by which they can be achieved become apparent only through exploring the games world. “You literally learn by playing “ (Johnson, 2005, p. 42). Gee (2003) has asserted that such games create a ‘cycle of expertise’ as players develop strategies to cope with well-designed problems, and then enjoy sufficient practice to allow automaticity of skill to develop. He argues that good games repeat this cycle again and again and that this is how expertise is produced in any domain. This is not a new argument but that does not make it any less relevant today. On the other hand, Beishuizen adds a timely reminder that, while students generally enjoy working in a TELE and this is particularly true for those with game elements built in, they may not be acquiring knowledge that is useful in other circumstances. His thoughtful reticence here is reminder not to be overtaken by technoromanticism. Beishuizen’s main argument is directed towards the value of good TELEs, a link here to Antonietti’s earlier argument, in stimulating higher cognitive skills. This he argues in achieved in part by externalizing the process of thinking and problem solving, thus aiding metacognitive awareness but

58

also aiding tutors in scaffolding the learner. He sees TELEs as a possible stimulus to learning through cognitive apprenticeship as extolled by Lave and Wenger (1991). He finishes with a plea for more structured research to guide us through this new learning environment. FINAL THOUGHTS One question that we have yet to fully answer is can TELEs help learners in distributed e-learning to develop into independent SRL learners? Which leads us to ask what will such TELEs look like and how will we know we have been affective? Two additional problem for all formal education is the differential value placed on certain skills and knowledge by tutors and students. A student may learn many things from playing games but does society value that learning and is such learning transferable into social recognized and valued skills and knowledge? These questions are beyond the scope of these proceedings but they remain universal issues that we should keep in mind. REFERENCES Gee, J.P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy? London: Palgrave Macmillan Johnson, S. (2005). Everything Bad is Good for You. London: Allen Lane. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nenniger, P. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: an International Review 54 (2), 239-244.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY JEAN UNDERWOOD is currently professor of psychology at Nottingham Trent University and was previously Reader in Education at the University of Leicester. A qualified teacher and teacher educator she has worked in the field of educational technology for 30 years, conducting a number of national research projects for the UK government.

A FRAMEWORK TO CONCEPTUALISE TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Alessandro Antonietti Department of Psychology – Cognitive Psychology Laboratory Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Largo Gemelli 1, Milano, 20123, Italy E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Computer-supported learning, metacognition, selfregulation. ABSTRACT A two-circular two-directional framework to conceptualise the relationships among learners' needs, the technology enhanced learning environment (TELE) that should satisfy those needs, the behaviour to be held within the TELE and the expected learning outcomes is proposed. This framework assumes that learners develop personal perceptions and beliefs about the TELE that they are invited to use. Furthermore, the trainees are seen as persons who can monitor what they do within the TELE according to their own perceptions and beliefs. In this perspective students are conceived as possessing metarepresentational skills that allow them to reflect upon themselves by shifting the focus of attention from the TELE to what occurs in their minds when engaged in the TELE. The framework might suggest possible ways to devise and introduce TELEs in training settings. THE EDUCATORS' PERSPECTIVE Nowadays we realise, as a matter of fact, that the ways in which people learn are changing: For instance, persons are asked to learn throughout their life, in a flexible manner, working together, and so on. Consequently, we have to take into account that learning occurs, and will occur in the future, in

different settings from the traditional ones. Thus, new approaches are needed. In particular, individuals should be trained to be autonomous learners who are able to identify by themselves how to manage the situations where they have to develop new knowledge, skills and competence (Telepeers consortium, 2005). Self-regulated learning appears to be a promising approach to do so (Boekaerts et al., 2000). How is it possible to encourage students to become self-regulated learners? Technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs) may be relevant to promote self-regulation in learning (Bereiter, 2002). A general framework which is useful to conceptualise this argument is the following. 1. There is a requirement that needs to be satisfied or a goal to be reached (in our case, the selfmanagement of learning). 2. Instructors look for, choose, adapt or devise by themselves a TELE matching their aims which should help students in satisfying that need or achieving that goal. 3. Then they invite learners to work within that TELE. 4. The learning outcomes are measured in order to test the alleged efficacy of the TELE. We can label this perspective as "objective", since it relies on the intrinsic properties of the TELE, and 59

"mono-directional" since it predicts a linear sequence of causal relationships (Bryant and Zillman, 2002).

presentations has to be empowered to support the realisation of the multimedia school journal.

However, if we assume a broader and more ecological point of view, the process seems to be more complex. If we take into consideration how people are involved in TELEs outside of strictly controlled educational settings, we realise that needs/goals, TELEs, ways of employing them and outcomes are also connected by causal relations which proceed in the opposite direction.

Finally, the relationship between use and effects is also twofold. On the one hand, the specific manner in which a TELE is used produces the desired effects on the learner's mind. On the other hand, the learner, so affected by the TELE, is induced subsequently to work differently within such a TELE according to what he/she has learnt about the TELE itself through its use. For instance, familiarisation or automatisation effects will facilitate and/or speed up the subsequent employment of the TELE.

In fact, if we analyse the link between the needs or goals and the learning environments which should match them, we notice that in some circumstances new needs and goals are highlighted or generated by existing technological tools and not vice versa. This could be because a tool, originally designed to satisfy a need, appears to be useful for a purpose that was not considered initially and, consequently, stresses the importance to satisfy a further need. For example, a platform designed to deliver online courses within an educational institution might lead trainees to collaboratively produce documents which appear to be worthy of being freely accessed by everybody interested in the topic. The initial need that the platform tried to satisfy was to allow students to work in a co-operative way to write joint texts. The platform designed to do this actually satisfied this need, but the further need to share the products of the courses with people external to that educational institution emerged as a consequence. Also the relationship between learning environments and their uses appears to be twofold. Most TELEs can be used in a variety of manners, since flexibility is a feature that they try to incorporate. Given the open-ended nature of TELEs, new properties of the environment can be discovered which, in turn, suggest possible modifications of the original environment in order to match the new opportunities that have been identified. For instance, a teacher might instruct students to create multimedia presentations when they have to report on an issue that they have studied. Thanks to their use of multimedia presentations, learners realise that the school journal might also become a multimedia journal constituted not only by written pages, but also by spoken interviews, movies reporting school events, recordings of alumni music performances and so on. So, the original software used for class

60

Thus, the initial circular model of "objective" relationships between needs/goals, TELEs, uses, and effects has to become two-directional since feedback reactions occur at each step of the causal chain. The matter, however, is even more complex. THE LEARNERS' PERSPECTIVE It is worth noticing that in the circular chain connecting needs/goals, TELEs, their uses and the corresponding effects, an important role is played by what the learner has in mind about the aims to be reached, the relevant properties of the TELE, a suitable way to work within it and the outcomes to be achieved. In short, to assess the effects of TELEs, we must take into account the student's subjective reactions to the elements involved in the learning process mediated by TELEs (Antonietti and Giorgetti, 2004; Antonietti and Giorgetti, in press; Antonietti et al., 2000). Thus, a second chain has to be introduced. It concerns the functions that personal perceptions and beliefs about the TELE have in modulating the relationships between the TELE and the effects that it produces. But what are the perceptions and beliefs that our second ring encompasses? First of all, we must recognise that needs and goals are not simply "facts" that the learner encounters or is presented with and that he/she accepts in a passive way. Needs are not only natural entities but are culturally framed constructs. Sometimes the needs and the goals are identified by the trainers, who make the student aware of what he/she needs and/or explicitly set the aims that he/she must achieve through the TELE. The needs and goals defined by the educators have a "subjective" counterpart–which may or may not

match the objective needs and goals–within the learners' mind. Secondly the TELE is not only a "fact", a set of devices incorporating "objective" properties. TELEs also have psychological counterparts in that the learner constructs a personal mental model of the environment. In such mental models some features of the TELE are emphasised, whereas other "objective" features are neglected or underestimated. It is worth noting a case reported by a teacher. He asked his students to explore the computer-supported threedimensional reconstruction of an ancient Greek villa with the aim of leading them to learn something about its architectural structure. He was astonished when he observed that some children were clicking on the walls of the building to search possible hidden passages and other children asked him some unexpected questions such as «How many lives I have at my disposal?» (Grove, 1997). In the learners' mind the instrument that their teacher proposed to use was conceptualised not as an educational simulation but rather as a video-game. There was a mismatch between the designer's and teacher's "objective" model of the tool and the pupils' "subjective" model. Thirdly, the work done by a learner within a TELE is not only the implementation of a sequence of actions. The student's behaviour is accompanied by beliefs about the way of use which is thought to be the most efficient, the operations which are considered relevant, the skills which are presumably activated and the cognitive styles which are perceived as adequate (Wilson and Whitelock, 1998). The learner's work within a TELE is also accompanied by beliefs about the role that he/she should play within the learning process and about the relevance/irrelevance of the learning setting which has been set by the trainer. Finally, students may or may not perceive the "objective" effects deriving from a TELE and develop individual criteria to judge the benefits which are expected, as well as the costs required. For instance, teachers might appreciate TELEs above all since they foster an inquiry-based approach to school subject matters, whereas students might appreciate them above all since they allow them to spend less time in executing the tasks assigned. Learners might fail to recognise the changes which occurred in him/herself as a consequence of the TELE, and they might perceive changes that did not actually occur. In any

case, learners perceive and appreciate or neglect and under-evaluate the results raised by the TELE according to their subjective criteria, based on the corresponding beliefs. MATCHING THE EDUCATORS' LEARNERS' PERSPECTIVE

AND

The two causal chains - the "objective" and the "subjective" ones - are parallel but reciprocally connected. The definition of the needs and goals set from an external, authoritative source (the teacher, the scientific community and so on) interacts with the learner's personal beliefs. Students can be informed about the teachers' or experts' opinions about what is needed or requested and can agree: In such case the external definitions of the needs and goals overlap the personal definition. However, if the external definition is not shared by the student, he/she can react by developing an alternative definition which may absorb only a part of what the trainers think is to be achieved, integrate it with what the individual believes or present completely different issues. If the trainee's interpretation of his/her needs and goals is expressed, educators can in turn revise their ideas about such topics, by trying to recognise and include in their definition the needs and goals seen from the student's point of view. Also the model of the TELE that the student has built in his/her mind and the opinions about the best way to use it can be revised when he/she realises the potential misconceptions. A better knowledge of the environment may lead a learner to update his/her mental model by encouraging him/her to recognise that the tool does not possess some alleged features or, conversely, to recognise that some functions, not previously perceived, can be usefully exploited. Similarly, reflecting on how the tool is actually used can lead learners to modify their beliefs about the strategies, the skills and the thinking styles that they assume to be relevant. An interaction between the students and the trainers may also be helpful to detect possible mismatches between the evaluation criteria of the effects developed by the former ones and those established by the latter ones, to reason about such mismatches, to review the personal ideas and to reach an agreement about what should be considered proof of 61

the validity of the TELE. As well as the corresponding elements of the "objective" chain, the mental counterparts of needs/goals, TELEs, their uses and effects are related to one another in a causal sequence. The personal conception of a need or of a goal brings learners to choose a TELE that is thought to be relevant to that need. If we exclude the situation of a learner compelled to work within a TELE without any idea about why it must be employed or without a personal commitment toward its use, we recognise that there is a process that occurs in the trainee's mind which leads him/her to recognise the existence of a need to be satisfied and/or of a goal to be reached and which orientates him/her toward a TELE that is believed, according to the model that the student has in mind, to be useful to satisfy that need or to reach that goal. The mental model of the TELE is connected to what the learner thinks about its proper use and so drives the user's behaviour. The mental model of the environment will suggest how it must be used and opinions about the relevant use, in turn, will inspire the behavioural plan to be executed. The learner will work within the TELE by trying to take advantage of the potentialities that he/she attributes to it and by following strategies, applying operations and activating skills which are believed to be relevant to achieve such aims. Finally, the personal definition of the adequate use of the TELE is linked to the personal definition of the evaluation criteria to be adopted to assess the effects produced. INTEGRATING THE EDUCATORS' LEARNERS' PERSPECTIVE

AND

The subjective chain described below is monodirectional. However the connections between the elements of such a chain also appear to be twodirectional since feedback processes are likely to occur. It may be that initially the learner does not perceive the needs or goals for which a relevant TELE has been devised. Then he/she becomes familiar with the TELE. The model of the TELE that the learner constructs in his/her mind enables him/her to appreciate the importance of the actions that the 62

TELE permits him/her to carry out. From this he/she can recognise that there is a need that has to be satisfied through that TELE. If we consider the relationships between the beliefs about TELEs and their uses, beside the causal link connecting the former ones to the latter ones, the inverse relationship may occur: The representation of how to work within an environment can modify the mental model of that environment. For instance: students appreciating the possibility, offered by a TELE, to control the learning process develop the belief that structured distance learning maximises such an opportunity. Alternatively students appreciating independence in learning are led to believe that open environments are the most relevant. When a student works within a TELE, he/she can discover new, more productive ways of working, and so transform his/her representation of its proper use and, in turn, the mental model of such a TELE. Finally, the observation of the effects produced by the TELE and the subjective appreciation of what has been obtained through it, can suggest novel ways of using it (different strategies, different control, and so forth). If we assume the two-circular two-directional framework described above, we can recognise that— beside the chain of causal influences that link educational goals, features of the environment devised to reach such goals, presumed ways to work in that environment and learning outcomes (the “objective” perspective)—a parallel chain links the actual work within the TELE to what learners think of the TELE itself (the “subjective” perspective). The "objective" and "subjective" perspectives can be conceived as two interacting perspectives. The needs or goals set by the educators—and the corresponding desired outcomes—interact with the learners’ representation of their own needs and goals; The identification of the relevant TELE carried out by instructors matches or mismatches students’ opinions about the TELE (why it should be useful, what advantages should be derived from its use, and so forth); The planned use of the TELE is modulated by what learners think is the best way of employing it; The effects of TELEs and the criteria and procedures requested to assess them may or may not be shared by trainers and trainees. The two-circular two-directional framework might suggest a possible way to address the request of intervention to support an educational

institution introducing TELEs in training activities to promote self-regulated learning. The framework requires us first of all to clarify what the "objective" chain of elements that teachers identified is: What are the learners' needs which emerged from the analysis of the situation? What goals have been settled by people who want to introduce TELEs? What are the specific technological devices that they choose to apply and why? How did they plan to present students with such environments and how did they design the instructional settings, the directions to be given to the students and the behaviour to be captured? How did they intend to assess the effects from the introduction of those TELEs and what standard did they expect to be achieved? Secondly, the framework suggests that trainees should infer, by means of observations or interviews, their perceptions and beliefs about the same topics: What aims do they presume their instructors have in mind? In students' opinion, what are the needs that TELEs should address? What do they think about the specific technological instruments to be introduced? How do they figure out their use of such devices (when, where, in what manner)? What benefits might they expected? The third step would be to link the teachers' perspective to the students' one. To conclude, TELEs ask students to upgrade their ways of learning, whilst students' perceptions and beliefs ask trainers to upgrade the design and implementation of the TELEs. REFERENCES Antonietti, A. and Giorgetti. M. (2004). Students’ conceptions about learning from multimedia. In H. Niegemann, R. Brünken and D. Leutner (Eds.). Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning. Waxmann, Münster-New York, 249-265. Antonietti, A. and Giorgetti. M. (in press). Teachers’ beliefs about psychological aspects of learning through multimedia. Computers in Human Behaviour. Antonietti, A., Rasi, C., Imperio, E. and Sacco, M. (2000). The representation of virtual reality in education. Education and Information Technologies, 5, 317-327. Bereiter C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J. Boekaerts, M., P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Bryant, J. and D. Zillman (Eds.). (2002). Media effects. Advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J. Grove, J. (1997). VR and history. VR in the Schools, 2 (1), 3-9. Telepeers consortium. (2005). Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Draft delivered on May 31. Wilson, T. and Whitelock. D. (1998). What are the perceived benefits of participating in a computermediated communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students?. Computers and Education, 30, 259-269.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY ALESSANDRO ANTONIETTI is full professor of cognitive psychology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milano. He teaches in M.D., postgraduate and Ph.D. courses in psychology and education. He is head of the Department of Psychology of the Catholic University and head of the Service of Learning and Education Psychology and co-ordinator of the Cognitive Psychology Laboratory of the same university. He has carried out experimental studies about creativity, problem-solving, mental imagery, and analogy. He is also interested in the applications of cognitive issues in the field of school instruction, empowerment and rehabilitation. He investigated thinking processes involved in hypertext navigation, multimedia communication, virtual reality immersion. He has published books and articles in scientific journals and devised tests and training programmes to enhance children’s and adults’ abilities in reasoning, visualising, and learning. Personal website: www.psycholab.net/antonietti

63

LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY: A HAPPY CONJUNCTION? Jean Underwood Division of Psychology Nottingham Trent University Nottingham United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005 Philip Banyard Division of Psychology Nottingham Trent University Nottingham United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Agency, learners, self-determination, Self-regulated Learning (SRL), skilled performance, Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs).

ambition of educationalists to promote SRL while the constraints of formal education only allow controlled behaviour regulation rather than autonomous self-regulation. STARTING POINTS

ABSTRACT The paper considers how Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) can contribute to the development of Self-regulated Learning (SRL). SRL is a sub set of Self-regulated Behaviour (SRB), which is a mechanism for monitoring and restoring well-being. A distinction is made between autonomous and controlled behaviour regulation to reflect the difference between goals set by the learner and those set by the tutor. The role of the tutor in facilitating SRL is discussed. SRL is also affected by the various goals which compete for any student’s attention and also by individual differences. The question for TELEs is to identify what added value they bring to the learner with regard to SRL. TELEs have clear advantages in terms of their anywhere, anytime flexibility and in their intrinsically motivating properties. Despite these advantages they do not necessarily promote SRL. Finally, a paradox is posed concerning the 64

The starting point for this discussion is the EU funded TELEPEERS project which has investigated the opportunities provided in a range of Technology Enhanced Environments (TELEs) to provide opportunities for Self-regulated Learning (SRL). While it is recognised that learning is a life-long activity and that much learning takes place outside of formal educational settings, in this discussion we draw our exemplar arguments from formal learning contexts, whether they are face-to-face in the class or lecture room or at a distance. Further, there are two underpinning assumptions of the argument presented here. The first is that the primary aim of education is to facilitate the development of skilled performance; the development of the cognitive and social abilities of the learner is and should be the paramount goal of education. The use of the term skills here is not

confined to low-level procedural competences rather it includes the range of skills to operate effectively within a complex dynamic environment. Such skills include the ability to problem solve and to interact effectively with others.

Learning Structures - formal / informal

Individual Differences - gender - expertise - moral code

Education for Skilled Performance

Task Variables - subject - ŌwhatÕvs. ŌhowÕ

Organisation - group ICT

structures - locus of control

- classroom computers - e-learning

Figure 1: Education For Skilled Performance: Factors Impacting Directly on the Learner (Underwood and Dillon, 2004) A second assumption is that the educational environment is comprised of a complex set of factors and relationships (see Figure 1) that impact on the learner’s progress through the educational system, including the prior knowledge and skills the learners brings with them and the organisational structures put in place by the educational institution. There are, of course, a number of additional factors that impact on learning that are not represented in this diagram. Some are directly influential at the learner level, and these include elements of the home and community environments. Then there are factors such as national and local policies, which have a secondary impact in that they influence the behaviour of educators and institutional policies. From this myriad of factors we will focus on two. At the learner level we are concerned with mechanisms by which the learner controls the learning process that is on the concept of Self-regulated Learning (SRL). At the contextural level the focus will be on the role of TELEs in supporting SRL. SELF-REGULATED BEHAVIOUR AND SELFREGULATED LEARNING The concept of SRL has emerged from the more extensive literature on Self-regulated Behaviour (SRB). Vancouver (2000) defines self-regulation as the processes involved in attaining and maintaining

(i.e. keeping regular) goals, where goals are internally represented desired states (i.e. within the self). SRB involves: goal establishment including adopting, adapting or rejecting goals; planning that is preparing to pursue a goal; striving - moving toward or maintaining a goal; and finally revision which encompasses the possibility of possible changing or disengaging from a goal (Austin and Vancouver, 1996). However, Wood (2005) argues this is too narrow a definition. Although it encapsulates internal processes it does not capture those transactional processes that Karoly (1993) sees as essential in the purposeful pursuit of any goal. SRB is a mechanism for maintaining and restoring well-being and avoiding negative status in all aspects of life and SRL is a subset of that more general concept. Karoly (1993), defines the selfregulation mechanisms underlying cognitive and somatic based learning as those processes, internal and/or transactional, that enable an individual to guide his or her goal-directed activities over time and across changing contexts. Goal seeking does not necessarily lead to outcomes that society would define as positive or beneficial. While goal attainment and maintenance are seen as central to self-regulation, goal disengagement may prove equally important. Goal disengagement can be beneficial to psychological well-being, particularly if the initial goal is not achievable and if disengagement results in the pursuit of new more attainable goals (Wrosch et al., 2003). Regulation implies modulation of thought, affect, behaviour, or attention via deliberate or automated use of specific mechanisms and supportive metaskills. The processes of self-regulation are initiated when routinised activity is impeded (for example the failure of habitual action patterns) or when goaldirectedness is otherwise made salient (for example with the appearance of a challenge). Transactional process provide the vital link between internal selfregulatory processes and human action Self-regulated learners draw on their knowledge and beliefs to devise an interpretation of a given academic task. These learners will set goals and think about the skills and strategies for achieving these goals. They monitor their progress toward the goals by judging their success against these goals (Zimmerman, 1989), and they recognise deviations from their expected rate of progress.

65

SRL highlights academic performance and develops through purposive engagement with the fundamental concepts and structures of the domain knowledge as students strive for academic success. However, while traditional models of SRB assume that the behaviour is determined by individual goals and needs with limited influence from others or the environmental context (Jackson, MacKenzie and Hobfoll, 2000), the extent of the influence of factors outside of the self are very apparent in the learning context, where teachers, institutions and even governments define acceptable learning goals. As Garner et al. (2000) so poetically put it; the classroom is where teachers dragoon learners into doing things they think are good for them. While this is possibly an overstatement, in the formal learning context the learner whether child or vocational trainee rarely sets key learning goals although there maybe choice on the path to such goals. Deci and Ryan (2000) sum this up in their theory of Self-Determination, which makes a clear distinction between autonomous and controlled behaviour regulation. In the former goals emanate from the individual and are set because of personal importance. In the latter controlled regulation occurs when the individual feels coerced or pressurised to obtain a goal set by external but also internal forces. Autonomous goals (e.g. desire to master a subject) are more likely to lead to successful outcomes than developed through controlled regulation (e.g. tutor or parental targets to do well). Of course self-regulation is not always the most strategic approach to academic success. As Garner et al (2000) intimate, students who fulfil the perceived expectation of tutors will receive high marks. THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF-REGULATION FOR LEARNING Glaser (1996) asserts that a fundamental principle underlying the acquisition of any level of competence is the change in agency for learning as expertise develops. Initially learning involves often extensive external support on the part of significant others (Vygotsky, 1978) such as a teacher, a parent or an expert in the area of skill to be learnt but the need for such support fades with growing competence. This shift in agency is central to concept of scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976) and contingent tutoring (Wood and Wood, 1999). The analysis of tutorial contingency is primarily 66

concerned with assessing the impact of social interaction on task learning and is based upon microanalyses of moment-by-moment interaction between learner and tutor (mother, teacher or machine). The concept has arisen out of dyadic interaction rather than small group teaching. Effective contingent instruction places heavy demands on tutors - demands that good machine based systems can in part meet, that is TELEs can provide some aspects of contingent instruction. From the Telepeers project the programming environment produced by colleagues in Compiegne, provides such support but in other TELEs such as DIVIDU from the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdamthe tutoring resides with staff and peers and the TELE supplies the environment within which exchanges take place. These individuals or TELEs play a vital role as contingent tutors in the acquisition of skills and knowledge. The basic ideas of contingent instruction are ‘deceptively simple to state, though hard to achieve in practice” (Wood and Wood, 1999, p.154). When a learner exhibits difficulties the contingent tutor offers help. If the difficulty is not resolved then the tutor offers more extensive, some would say intrusive, help until the learner resolves his or her difficulties. Once the learner shows a degree of competence with the material the tutor fades or withdraws allowing more and more responsibility to pass to the learner. It may appear at first sight that the contingent help is rather didactic and that it is couched in terms of what the tutor does to or for the learner, but Wood and Wood (1999) argue that this is a two-way model, an interaction between tutor and learner and that contingency is an emergent property of that interaction. Not only does the learner’s knowledge change through the interaction, the tutor develops an internal model of the learner’s progress that is progressively modified by the behaviour of the learner. The development of the learner model allows the tutor to tailor feedback to the learner. Wood et al (1976) suggest that effective helping involves two ingredients. The first concerns circumstances in which a child gets into difficulty. Here the tutor immediately offers more specific instruction or help than was offered previously. The second ingredient of effective instruction is fading, that is providing the child with the minimal help needed to ensure joint success. This requires the tutor to withdraw or fade from the interaction if the learner is being successful.

As experience and competence increases the individual increasingly internalizes control over the learning situation and the honing of performance that is they begin to self-regulate. However, Bielaczyc et al. (1995) argue that the acquisition of cognitive skill is affected not only by the quantity but the quality of self-explanations produced by learners. Learners need relevant strategies, which lead them to ask not only do they know and understand but also whether that understanding is at a sufficient level. In summary this chapter is predicated on the assumptions that: • Self-regulation is a general adaptive process for maintaining and restoring wellbeing. • Self-regulated learning is a subset of SR focused on academic success. • The role of the tutor is to promote academic success by mediating the change in the student from controlled to selfregulated learner. • TELEs can enhance the role of the tutor in this process and in some cases can replace it. SELF-REGULATION; A CONCEPT IN FLUX? There are procedural, epistemic and conceptual divergences in the models of self-regulated learning in education (see Boekarts and Corno, 2005). Models may variously emphasise volitional behaviour (Corno, 2004), cognitive processes (Winne, 1995) or cultural settings (McCaslin and Hickey, 2001) but all assume that students who selfregulate their learning • Engage actively and constructively in a process of meaning generation. • Adapt thoughts, feelings and actions as needed to affect learning and motivation • Use standards to direct learning and set goals • Have individual differences whether inherent or learnt which enhance or interfere with self-regulation • Mediate the relationship between achievement and individual and contextual characteristics through self-regulation. Self-regulation guides behaviour along a specific path to a directed aim or goal. In the goal selection phase of SR, determinants of intention (goal

commitment) are hypothesised to play a key role. In social cognitive models these include • risk perception • outcome expectancies • social influences • perceived competency (self-efficacy) Although these models are good at predictingintention they are poor at predicting actual behaviours, that is they are not necessarily models of behavioural change. Directions of behaviours are influenced by long- and short-term, important and non-important, and easy and difficult goals that are prioritized and strategically implemented according to individual aims during self-regulation. The effectiveness of SRL is dependant upon the clarity and power of the goal setting. Clarity needs little explanation but by power we mean the strength of the goal to stand up to other competing goals, which the individual may have outside of the learning context. SRL theory is challenged when the individual has competing goals. A current example from our own teaching will illustrate this balance of long-term and short-term goals. The long term goal of completing the final year degree project weighs heavily on one of our students, but not so heavily that she has turned down an offer of a tutorial she badly needs and wants because she is attending a 21st birthday party the night before the tutorial! COMPETING GOALS There are then many goals or targets which compete for any student’s attention. For example, in the search for personal development, students may strive to achieve: • Academic success (look at my certificates) • Personal validation (I’m proud of my achievements) • External validation (my mother will be very proud) • Personal discovery (climb every mountain, or very small hill) • Social acceptance (everybody loves me I’m successful / I don’t work) Boekarts and Niemivirta (2000) suggest that there is a tension between academic learning goals and egoprotective goals and that is the balance achieved between these opposing goals which controls the direction the individual will take. Ego-protective goals can be adaptive, for example unrealistic 67

optimism is a requirement for good mental health. People have been found to consistently rate themselves as healthier, wealthier and happier than their peers (after Weinstein, 1982). Unrealistic optimism about educational progress and potential can be seen to be adaptive but it is likely to inhibit self-regulation because self-monitoring of performance has a self-serving bias. However, some individuals, in an attempt to protect their ego from self-criticism, may disregard vital information from observation in a self-serving bias, and thus, limit the effectiveness of self-monitoring (Baumeister et al., 1993; Krosnick and Sedikides, 1990). However, Carver and Scheier (2000) suggest that a resolution to this impasse in the theory is to view the competing goals as being on different levels in a hierarchy of goals. Baumeister and Heatherton (1996) argue not from a competing goal position rather they suggest that self-regulation fails when an individual makes false–assumptions about what they can achieve, how they can achieve it or how important it is to achieve the goal. Once a specific self-regulation treatment has been learned and adapted for a specific behaviour, it becomes increasingly difficult to change treatment to be congruent with long-term goals. In other words, too much deviation from the original path may lead to never finding the same path again. Thus, clear and defined goal setting is essential in the initial approach to self-regulation. This is Gollwitzer’s (1990) Rubicon Model. Just as Coriolanus crossing the Rubicon was a moment of commitment to invade his home city of Rome, Gollwitzer sees the learner standing on one side of the river setting goals and intents but these can not achieved until the individual crosses the river and then an act of goal striving begins. Gollwitzer’s work shows that once the commitment is made then individuals find it very difficult, if not impossible to review or revert back to previously espoused goals. Once goal setting has been developed, the ability to self-monitor becomes essential because attention to internal and external cues, through greater selfawareness, leads to faster and more appropriate control of intervention strategies. Attention to internal states (thoughts, feeling, sensations) and external states (bodily movement and environment) is a different phenomenon from attentional styles, though there is overlap between the two. Boekaerts (2005) points out that the deliberate focus 68

on mindful learning in the SRL literature tells us little about the student who does not fit the pattern of the SR Learner. It also fails to shed light on achievement goals and other goals students pursue. In the messy world of classrooms learning creates different goals INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES There are strong individual differences in the degree to which students engage in SRL activities. Some students appear to use SRL whatever the study program. While others appear never to engage in SRL activities whatever the study programme. Then again there are intermittent users of SRL mechanisms and it is these in particular that we might argue TELEs can support and provide added value to existing educational environments. For example, individuals differ in their attentional style, the relationship of concentration and focus to the environment (Zaichkowsky, 1984). Attentional style is related to the degree of internal and external distraction and the degree of conscious and automatic control an individual possesses for a given task (Hardy et al., 1996). That is, it is the ability of the learner to intervene and separate important mental content from non-important derived from specific stimuli, and to know when to consciously over-ride actions or to allow automatic processes to continue. This process is governed by the skill of the individual to self-monitor effectively. The question to consider about TELEs is whether they bring something new and effective to the educational environment or is it just new packaging for old techniques? In particular, • Do TELEs have a particular impact on occasional self-regulators? • Are the effects measurable? • Are the benefits real or just perceived (c.f. benefits of PowerPoint described below) THE TECHNOLOGY DIMENSION Pintrich (2000) has questioned the strength of the focus on the learner when considering the SRL paradigm, arguing that the context within which the learning takes place constrains self-regulation; that is that learning is situated (Lave and Wenger, 1991). New technologies have and are changing the learning environment and TELES provide a range of contexts within which learning takes place. What is

the impact of such technological changes? The anticipation of the benefits of new technologies for learning has increased with the proliferation of computers, the rise of the Internet and increasing levels of connectivity. Although the debate about the value of technology in education rages on - see Hokanson and Hooper (2000) for one of the more balanced debates - here we are interested in the way in which new technologies shape the context within which learning takes place. As Innes (1954) says “new technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about. They alter the character of our symbols and the things we think with. And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop.” (p.20). A very simple example, the use of PowerPoint multimedia presentations in lectures, will suffice to illustrate how new technologies change the learning context. Across a range of studies (Apperson et al., 2006; Pippert and Moore, 1999; Susskind, 2005) it has been found that lecturers who use PowerPoint presentations instead of older non-digital technologies such as chalkboards or overhead projector slides, are rated as better on a wide range of teaching dimensions by their students. This positive halo effect for technology users was seen to spill over into activities unrelated to the lecture format such as handing back papers on time, providing helpful feedback, and assigning tasks requiring critical or creative thought. The students also held stronger academic self-efficacy beliefs when PowerPoint presentations were employed. Such lectures were perceived as being easier to understand and take notes from. The students believed that they took more notes and perceived those notes as more organized and useful for studying when PowerPoint multimedia presentations accompanied lecture. At this point it should be noted that little or no evidence has been published to show that this positive response to the technologysupported lecture has any preferential benefits on learning outcomes. The point here is that students see the learning environment as more beneficial to them when the technology is used. Recent developments in learning styles and in new technologies show a clear synergy. As learning becomes more individualised, learner-centred, situated, collaborative, ubiquitous, and spans the life-span; new technologies are becoming more personalised, user-centred, mobile, networked, ubiquitous, and durable setting the stage for a

successful but challenging technology learning environment. Sharples (2000) states that there are five approaches to using technology in learning and the TELES studied in the Telepeers project are represented in four of the five approaches. They are as follows: 1. Intelligent tutoring systems (Underwood and Brown, 1997) that have attempted to replace the teacher. These have had limited success, (Telepeers, Programming Tutorials) 2. Simulation and modelling tools that serve as learner’s assistants or pedagogical agents embedded in applications that act as mentors providing advice, (Telepeers, Portfolio) 3. Dictionaries, concept maps, learning organizers, planners and other resource aids that help learners to learn or organize knowledge with system tools and resources, (Telepeers, Cognitive Psychology WebPages, Weblogs) 4. Personalised communication aids that can present materials depending on user abilities and experience with the system, and 5. Simulated classrooms and labs that engage teachers and learners in an interaction similar to real classrooms. (Telepeers, SWIM) The advantages of learning with new technologies particularly those supported through the Internet include flexibility of anytime and anywhere learning (Brandon and Hollingshead, 1999), self-paced learning, ability to link resources in many different formats, accommodating different learning styles, and potential for widening access (e.g., work based students). New technologies are also motivating (Cavendish et al., 1997). Pintrich and Schunk (1996) outline three general types of motivational beliefs; self-efficacy beliefs (that is judgments of one's capabilities to do the academic task); task value beliefs (that is, beliefs about the importance of, interest in, and value of the task); and goal orientations (that is, whether the focus is on mastery and learning of the task, grades or extrinsic reasons for doing the task, or relative ability in relation to social comparisons with other students). They have shown self-efficacy is positively related to selfregulated self-regulatory strategies such as planning, monitoring, and regulating which have been shown to lead to academic success Not all is rosy in the technologically enhanced learning environment. For example, staff feel it might be difficult to authenticate learners' work (Underwood, 2001) while students may experience a 69

lack of social interaction with peers, learners may feel isolated at not being part of a more traditional community (Motiwalla and Tello, 2000). However the success of TELE learning depends largely on learners’ satisfaction with the TELE as this will impact on the learner’s intention to continue using it. Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala et al. (1983) argue that satisfaction results from the degree to which the TELE is able to fulfill needs, facilitate reaching goals, or affirm personal values as this will determine the value of the TELE to the individual. So one of the most desired characteristics of a TELE is the degree to which it adaptive and personalized, since it has to be used by a wide variety of students with different skills and learning styles. E-learning and the new mobile or m-learning offer increased opportunities to the learner to personalise and to self-regulate. Learners may be satisfied with the technology based learning even when negative aspects of it exist, provided that doing well when using the system is important to them, for example taking a Web-based learning courses relates to their current and future career goals, and it is interesting, enjoyable and fun. FINAL THOUGHTS A paradox exists in the debate concerning SRL. While many theorists and indeed practitioners espouse the value of self-regulation, both in learning and as life-skill in general, the formal education system sets the learning goals, requires students to meet those goals and indeed rewards those that do. It can be argued that in formal education we can only promote controlled behaviour regulation (Deci and Ryan, 2000) and not autonomous self-regulation, as the latter requires individual choice of goals. We would argue here, however, that TELEs cannot only provide the choice paths within a controlled behaviour regulation model. They are also capable of subversion or novel use by students and in this way they move us a little nearer to the autonomous self-regulating learner. REFERENCES Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., Scepansky, J. A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on students’ experience in the classroom. Computers and Education. In press. Austin, S.J. and Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.

70

Baumeister, R.F. and Heatherton, T.F. (1996). Selfregulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1-15. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., and Tice, D. M. (1993). When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 141-156. Bielaczyc, K., Pirollli, P. L. and Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in Self-Explanation and Self-Regulation Strategies: Investigating the Effects of Knowledge Acquisition Activities on Problem Solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-252. Boekaerts, M. and Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,199-231. Boekaerts, M and Niemvirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding the balance between learning goals and ego-protecting goals. In M. Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and M. Zeidner (eds.) Handbook of Selfregulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brandon, D. P., and Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48, 109-126. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (2000). On the structure of behavioural self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts P.R. Pintich and M. Zeidner (eds.) Handbook of Selfregulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cavendish, S. Underwood, Lawson, T. and Dowling, S. When and why do pupils learn from Integrated Learning Systems? In J. Underwood and J. Brown (Eds.) "Integrated Learning Systems : Potential into Practice." London: Heinemann, Corno, L. (2004) Work habits and work styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Record, 106, 1669-1694. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits; Human need and the selfdetermination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., and Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.). Achievement and Achievement Motivation. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Garner, R., Zhao Y. and Gillingham, M. (2000). Editorial. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 223-226. Glaser, R. (1996) Changing the Agency for Learning: Acquiring Expert Performance. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to Excellence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gollwitzer, P.M. (1990). Action phases and mind sets. In E.T. Higgins and R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Vol.2. Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: Guildford Press. Hardy, L., Mullen, R., and Jones, G. (1996). Knowledge and conscious control of motor actions under stress. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 621-636. Hokanson, B. and Hooper, S. (200). Computers as cognitive media: Examining the potential of

computers in education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 16, 537-552. Innis, H.A. (1954). The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Jackson, T., MacKenzie, J. and Hobfoll, S.T. (2000). Communal aspects of self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 275-300 Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: a systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 2352. Krosnick, J. A. and Sedikides, C. (1990). Self-monitoring and self-protective biases in use of consensus information to predict one's own behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 718-728. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCaslin, M. and Hickey, D.T. (2001). Educational psychology, social constructivism and educational practice: A case of emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 36, 133-140. Motiwalla, L. and Tello, S. (2000). Distance learning on the Internet: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 253-264. Pintrich, P.R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. Educational Research, 31, 459-470. Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 452-502. Pippert, T. D., and Moore, H. A. (1999). Multiple perspectives on multimedia in the large lecture. Teaching Sociology, 27, 92-109. Sharples, M. (2000) The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education, 34, 241-255. Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Vol. 12 New York: Academic Press. Susskind, J. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45, 203-215. Winne, P.H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187. Wood, R. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation research. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,192-198. Underwood, J. (2000). Teachers are the key. Dialogue 24, 3-7 &19-21. Underwood. J. and Brown, J. (1997). "Where now?" In Jean Underwood and Jenny Brown (Eds.) "Integrated Learning Systems: Potential into Practice." London: Heinemann. Underwood, J. D.M. and Dillon, G. (2004). Maturity Modelling: A framework for capturing the effects of

technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 213-224. Vancouver, J.B. (2000). Self-regulation in industrial/organizational psychology: A tale of two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 303-341. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind In Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Weinstein, N.D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 441-460 Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Wood, H. and Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers and Education, 33, 153-169. Wood, R. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation research. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,192-198. Wrosch, C., Sheier, M., Carver, C. and Schulz, R. (2003). The importance of goal disengagement in adaptive self-regulation. When giving up is beneficial. Self and Identity, 2, 1-20. Zaichkowsky, L. D. (1984). Attentional styles. In W. F. Straub and J. M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive Sport Psychology. Lansing, New York: Sport Science Associates.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES JEAN UNDERWOOD is currently professor of psychology at Nottingham Trent University and was previously Reader in Education at the University of Leicester. A qualified teacher and teacher educator she has worked in the field of educational technology for 30 years, conducting a number of national research projects for the UK government. PHIL BANYARD is Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Trent University. He has been involved in the teaching of psychology in schools for over 25 years including 15 years as Chief Examiner of A Level Psychology.

71

LEARNING BY COMPETITION: COMPETE AND OPTIMISE YOUR STRATEGY Hermann Rüppell Department of Edcuation University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz D-50923 Cologne Germany E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Competition, learning strategies, Online gaming. ABSTRACT Competitive online learning games are technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs) that are highly suitable for the promotion of self-regulated learning (SRL) because they involve a problemsolving perspective, are intrinsically motivating, and evoke emotions that are necessary for selfdevelopment. In order to stimulate different learning processes and different emotions we developed a large set of game-like learning settings. A game-like learning setting is a frame for competitive or collaborative interaction in a group of four to twelve learners. The development of these learning settings is based on the adaptive learning environment (ALE) which consists of a set of more than fifty game-like learning settings. INTRODUCTION The basic idea of this paper is the following: playing and gaming are self-regulated activities, while learning – in most situations – is fundamentally teacher-regulated. Therefore in order to develop selfregulated learning it may be easier to enrich the selfregulated gaming behavior with learning activities, rather than to restructure the receptive classroom learning behavior. An optimal context for the enrichment of games by learning activities is given in multiplayer online 72

games because they offer new possibilities to stimulate well-defined learning processes. The enrichment of competitive multiplayer online games by learning activities leads to competitive educational online-games – COME-ON games. Because of the huge success of massively multiplayer online action games, it seems to be an efficient strategy to design the COME-ON games in analogy to these multiplayer action games. MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ACTION GAMES Massively multiplayer online action games are the ultimate extension of single player computer games. These games connect a large number of people from different locations to engage in complex social and cognitive interactions and to compete with each other in order to reach a shared goal. Multiplayer online action games are designed for fun, skill and action in a virtual social context. Examples of frequently played games are Counterstrike, Everquest or Warcraft. The dominant actions in these games are planning, quick-decision-making, conquering and fighting. Other multiplayer online games are card games or skill games like Tetris. The driving force in all these games is a distributed competition with players all over the world. The stimulating force is the immediate feedback without any time delay and without any evaluation from trainers or teachers. This immediate feedback together with the experience of being more or less competent, or more or less skillful than other players, strengthens the motivation to try harder and to become better. The observation that online gamers acquire complex decision and

coordination skills raised the interest of social scientists and has stimulated systematic research. Important studies of this online game research are the Daedalus-Project, a large online-player-survey (Yee, 2005), the Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Project from the Wisconsin Technology Network at Madison (Gee, Squire and Steinkuehler, 2005) and the results from the XEODesign research study (Lazzaro, 2004) concerning the emotions that online games induce. The Daedalus-Project surveyed more than 35,000 Massively Distributed Multiplayer Online RolePlaying Game players from a majority of the popular US Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. Over the past five years, these findings were presented in a variety of formats. The Daedalus Gateway is an attempt to provide a coherent gateway to all those findings (http://www.nickyee.com/ daedalus/). The research of Gee and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison explains the advantages of games over traditional teaching tools. They argue that Massively-Multiplayer Online Games are much more than mindless entertainment, and derivatives of them could be used in schools or for corporate training. Gee and his colleagues would like to make similar games that let players be scientists or take on other professional roles. Squire has worked on a game called “Biohazard” in which firefighters must react to dangerous situations. They learn the most effective ways to, for example, evacuate people from a mall after a sarin-gas attack. One feature that is important for the analysis of selfregulated learning is the description of what gamers do: ‘They upload and they share information and ideas, give each other commentaries and teach one and another to play the game better. They make their thinking visible in front of a community of experts they have identified with. And they give feedback on the same problem. This is real intellectual work online because everyone is playing the same game giving each other feedback. This is, what e-learningpeople would like to see happen’ (Gee, Squire and Steinkuehler, 2005). The XEODesign study revealed that multiplayer online games have “four keys to releasing emotions during play” (Lazzaro, 2004). Lazzaro conducted

analysis with online gamers concerning the emotions that the games induce. 1. Hard Fun: Players like the opportunities for challenge, strategy, and problem solving. Their comments focus on the game’s challenge and strategic thinking and problem solving. This “Hard Fun” frequently generates emotions and experiences of frustration and pride. 2. Easy Fun: Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity. Players become immersed in games when it absorbs their complete attention, or when it takes them on an exciting adventure. These immersive game aspects are “Easy Fun” and generate emotions and experiences of wonder, awe, and mystery. 3. Altered States: Players treasure the enjoyment from their internal experiences in reaction to the visceral, behavioural, cognitive, and social properties. These players play for internal sensations such as excitement or relief from their thoughts and feelings. 4. The People Factor: Players use games as mechanisms for social experiences. These players enjoy the emotions of amusement coming from the social experiences of competition, teamwork, as well as opportunity for social bonding and personal recognition that comes from playing with others (Lazarro, 2004). SELF-REGULATION AND LEARNING The basic problem with self-regulated learning can be seen in the fact that the dominant perspective of learners in the traditional classroom is listening. Over the years this perspective has been firmly established with the consequence that the student expects the teacher to be responsible for the stimulation and regulation of his learning process. Connected to this expectation is a critical attitude towards the teacher’s behaviour and this attitude is transferred to other innovative learning methods especially to multimedia-programs and e-learning. According to our observations many students are looking for weaknesses and suboptimalities of multi-mediaprograms or e-learning-programs in order to find a reason to reject the new techniques. The generalised consequence of this counter-productive attitude is the belief that all controllable factors, like particular strategies, are unimportant and that effort and ability are the only factors for success.

73

The dominance of only one perspective in learning is the main weakness of the traditional classroom learning setting (Moore and Anderson, 1969). Moore and Anderson explain this in the context of their theory of Clarifying Learning Environments. They developed their theory on the basis of an analysis of the functions of games, where they show that every culture has invented games in order to guarantee that every child internalises the basic social and cognitive competencies. Their main theoretical argument is that human behaviour is regulated by four fundamental action perspectives: • The perspective of the recipient or consumer, • the perspective of the problem-solver, • the perspective of the strategist and • the perspective of an evaluator or referee. Games are attractive for people because they offer the possibility to freely change between these perspectives. As a recipient or consumer perspective, the learner absorbs the information without any control over the ongoing events. A lecture or television program induces this perspective in a prototypical manner. As a problem-solver the learner is actively engaged in generating hypotheses, in planning, or in trial-and-error-behaviour. Moore and Anderson call this perspective ‘games against nature’. Solving brain-teasers or puzzles are prototypical activities. The perspective of the strategists is characterised by games against intelligent opponents, where you have to take their strategy into account. Chess for example induces this perspective. As an evaluator or referee you have the opportunity to judge the quality of the actions and to share your opinions with others as you sometimes do after hearing a lecture or watching television. The dominance of only one or two perspectives in traditional education is one of the reasons that selfregulated learning rarely takes place. A closer look at self-regulated learning shows that a consuming attitude is incompatible with the cognitive and motivational processes underlying self-regulated learning. These processes can be seen in monitoring and controlling emotions when obstacles are encountered, generating thoughts of confidence and diligence when motivation decreases, flexibility and information seeking, allocation of time, seeing failure only as a temporary setback or seeking help by cooperation (Zimmermann, 1990). An efficient and valuable form of self-regulated learning can be seen 74

in the creation of a complete learning strategy that regulates the sub-processes of coding, rehearsal, restructuring, elaboration, automation and that supports the sub-processes of cognitive motivation, adaptation to the learning situation, reflection to the learning progress, and sustaining attention. A clarifying educational environment in the sense of Moore and Anderson, which is mainly based on the concept of games, directly stimulates neither these learning processes nor the creation of a coordinated learning strategy. It is the stimulation of these processes on which our competitive educational online games – COME-ON-games – focus. Because games are closely related to play it is interesting to notice that Rieber (1996) developed a theory of how play is related to self-regulation and to microworlds in the sense of Papert (Papert, 1980). He argues that microworlds have to be enriched with elements of games in order to support intensive selfregulation. Rieber’s design is a hybrid interactive learning environment, based on the constructivist concept of a microworld and supported with elements of both games and simulations. Rieber’s microworld concept is based on components of Piaget’s theory of intellectual development and the Flow Theory of Optimal Experience developed by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). Both illustrate the close relationship between self-regulated learning and play. The best known microworld is the LOGO programming environment, developed by Papert and explained in his frequently cited book ‘Mindstorms’. THE ALE AND THE COME-ON GAMES The competitive-educational-online games – COMEON games – are based partly on the concept of games and partly on the results and the theory of the Adaptive Learning Environment (ALE) (Rüppell, 1982). The ALE was our first approach to promote self-regulated learning (SRL) by the development of a complete learning strategy. The ALE was developed with the aim of individualising the learning process and to offer every pupil optimal learning conditions. Our hypothesis was that these external learning conditions would be internalised after an extended period of time and that as a consequence, a selfregulated learner would develop. A learning condition is defined as a characteristic of the learning

situation, whose efficacy can be supported by empirical data and theoretical arguments. The learning conditions are grouped and harmonised in order to regulate one of the above mentioned subprocesses. These harmonised groups of learning conditions form the sub-systems of the ALE: The display system for the regulation of the coding process; the regulation of the manipulanda system for the restructuring process; the regulation of the supervision system for the elaboration-process; the regulation of the practice system for the automation process. Selected learning-conditions of the manipulanda system are: - peer controversy, i.e., the learners are confronted with arguments or evidence that are to some extent inconsistent with their own beliefs; - peer modelling: i.e., the thinking out loud of one player of a small group during a difficult thinking process; - programmed peer tutoring, i.e., one member of the small group who has been given more information in advance to help the others; - teach back: i.e., a pupil to whom something has been explained, explains the same thing to someone else. Selected learning conditions of the supervision system are: -

-

-

process feedback: i.e., a detailed description of one’s own thinking difficulties; tutoring: i.e., giving feedback and instructions on how to structure and how to improve the learning process, social reinforcement; meta-cognitive feedback: i.e., encouraging the pupil to be retrospective about the solution to a problem and to discuss all his reasoning on the basis of the normative thinking model, post organiser: i.e. constructing a flow diagram of the course of one’s own solution process; the display of a general conceptual system so that the concepts that have previously been studied thoroughly can be logically integrated – as analogy to the ‘advanced organiser”.

In order to implement the sub-systems of the ALE in the classroom, we invented the slides projector table (see Figure 1). The learning content is projected to the transparent surface of the table and in addition to the content, specific activities are prescribed for every learner. These prescriptions define game-like learning settings. These game-like learning settings realise one or more of the above mentioned learning conditions.

Figure 1: The slides projector table, the centre of the ALE. In the context of the Adaptive Learning Environment, nearly 50 game-like learning settings were developed and tested. These settings were very effective in regulating the group behaviour. The development of our competitive educational online-games is based on the research with the slides table and is extended to the new possibilities that distributed learning through the internet offers. The learners or players are now distributed all over the world. The main difference between the ALE and the COME-ON games is the balance of competition and cooperation. The social activities in the ALE were dominated by cooperation and collaboration because the environment was developed in order to increase the chances for the slower learners. The COME-ON games are more competitive because they are primarily developed in order to foster the achievements of the more competent or high-potential students. Our work and some observations indicate that this strategy will also increase the achievements of the slower learners assuming that adequate supporting learning conditions are realised. 75

Unfortunately, the slides and the slide projector table were too expensive to be implemented on a large scale in schools.

From Recognition to Free Recall settings are a case of hot competition because the chances of one player are directly influenced by the speed and skill of the other players.

EXAMPLES OF COME-ON-GAMES Setting: Comparative Feedback The COME-ON games are game-like learning settings developed in analogy to the settings of the Adaptive Learning Environment (ALE) with the above stated difference that competition is much stronger than cooperation. Three game-like learning settings are described in order to demonstrate the power of competition. Setting: From Recognition to Free Recall This setting has three consecutive parts: 1. speed matching 2. stimulated recall matching 3. free recall matching. 1. Hot competition by Speed Matching - A word list e.g. a vocabulary of 12 words is presented to each player for only one minute and each player tries to memorise as much as possible. - The word-lists are now scrambled on the screen. - Simultaneously all players can now click pairs of words. - If one player clicks on a correct pair, this pair immediately disappears from the screen of all players wherever they are in the world. According to this feature a player always has to be aware that a pair on which he wanted to click might vanish. - The winner is asked to explain his strategies to the other players in the chat, and give hints to the other players. 2. Stimulated Recall Matching In Stimulated Recall Matching only one part of the word list is visible. In the other part every letter is replaced by a dot and the player has to type in the initial letter of the word. 3. Free Recall Matching In Free Recall Matching no part of the word list is visible and the players have to type in the initials of the two words of a pair of the list he remembered. The pairs appear one after the other on the screen. 76

The rules are the same as in the setting “From Recognition to Free Recall”, with the exception that the vocabulary pairs do not vanish, so that every player can try his chances with every pair of the list. After some minutes the program shows how many right choices were made by each player and how much time each player took. This setting provides a ranking of the players. Comparative Feedback is a case of cold competition. Setting: Learn and Take your Turn 1. 2.

3. 4.

A paragraph (7+-2 sentences) is presented to each player for only 3 minutes and each player tries to memorise as much as possible. The paragraph disappears from the screen and is replaced by a corresponding pattern of lines. Now one player is requested to type the initial letters of a sequence of 2 to 4 words from the paragraph. This is done in a clockwise direction until no player can remember an additional sequence. If a player enters a correct sequence he will get one point for every initial. A player can also skip his turn, resulting in 0 points.

“Learn and Take your Turn” is a case of moderate competition. Every player gets his chance or can skip it at the expense of being evaluated by the other players. This game results in a discussion of the strategies used in a chat afterwards. The COME-ON games are very cheap and can be implemented in any location in the world. We are probably able to invent and implement 50 game-like learning settings for this new learning technology. THE DANGER OF COMPETITION "Compete and Win" is an American slogan. Americans historically have enjoyed taking part in all kinds of competition (Bainbridge, 1999). Occupations and recreational activities routinely are based on trying to exceed a standard or beat competitors. In

Europe this attitude is less pronounced although the Olympic model is well accepted. The Olympics is the model for genuine competition because athletes like the competition and - what is more important - like the activities. In some cases, participating is less about winning than about discovering what human beings are capable of doing. All participants can feel good about being a part of the community because it brings out the best in all of us and it helps set new standards for what individuals or teams are capable of. This is the right spirit of Olympic competition resulting in a win-win philosophy. When people compete in games, it requires that they act on certain social assumptions about their relationships and on the rules of the game - just like cooperation. In this sense the players have to cooperate in order to compete. However, every pedagogical conception of a competitive game has to consider some negative aspects of competition, especially the negative interpersonal emotions. In distributed competition, interpersonal emotions are less involved as in face-to-face competition because players only know each other virtually and they are not taking their actions at the expense of others, which sometimes happens in face-to-face games. Another danger of competition is the fact that the aptitude-treatment-interaction-research (ATI) shows that the best instruction involves treatments that differ in structure and completeness and high or low general ability measures. Highly structured treatments (e.g., high external control, explicit sequences and components) seem to help students with low ability but hinder those with high abilities (relative to low structure treatments) (Cronbach, 1977). It is argued that real-time competition tasks have features that promote metacognition and the development of new learning strategies. In real time competitive tasks you can see what the other players are "thinking" by trying to solve their problem. The rules of some games encourage the players to change their strategies. Players must learn to change their goals quickly depending on which strategy the other player has chosen. As can be imagined, complex strategies arise. So a player is always able to supplement his own strategy by adding an element. This is comparable to the co-evolution of complex strategies that takes place in the area of artificial

intelligence. In this area fitness is based on direct competition and immediate feedback. Competitive co-evolution can lead to an “arms race”, in which the two populations reciprocally drive one another to increasing levels of performance and complexity. The hope is that increasingly sophisticated strategies will utilise increasingly complex structures, preventing the arms race from stagnating. The competitive task is challenging when the players always start out with exactly the same configuration and resources. In conclusion, it is stressed that the main advantage of learning games is their motivating character. Exciting games energise behaviour and direct learning behaviour. The arousal leads to high competition, to persistence and high concentration, and may only sometimes lead to aggressive competition. In order to manage aggressive competition some of our COMEON games are played with an administrator. The administrator regulates the emotions, promotes the communication, asks the players to explain their strategies or exchange ideas. Technically this is realised by a chat tool which is connected to every game. No matter whether this is intended or not, the results of competitions will put the player into a rank order, i.e. player A is considered to be the most competent and therefore players B, C and D look less competent, but in a game-like competition this frustration has another quality. It is “pleasantly frustrating” and this may be the reason why frustration in a game more often leads to motivation than to demotivation. REFERENCES Bainbridge, J. R. (1999). Motivation Through Competition? http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/ SepOct99/MS418.htm Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row. Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington Publishers. Gee, P., Squire, K. & Steinkuehler, C. (2005): How Games are Reshaping Business. http://wistechnology.com/ media/accel_games/viewer.html Lazzaro, N. (2004): Why we play games: four keys to more emotion without story. Abstract March 8, 2004. Player Experience Research and Design for Mass Market Interactive Entertainment. XEODesign, Oakland, USA. http://www.xeodesign.com/ whyweplaygames.html

77

Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computerbased education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, III: Conative and Affective Process Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 255-286. Moore, O. K. & Anderson, A.R. (1969). Some principles for the design of clarifying educational environments. In Greenblat, Cathy and Richard S. Duke (Eds.). 1975. Gaming Simulation; Rational, Design, and Applications: New York: John Wiley & Sons, 47-71. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: BasicBooks. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44 (2), 43-58. Rüppell, H. (1982). Das Adaptive Lehr-Lern-System. Ein pädagogisch-psychologisches Interventionsmodell mit multipler Zielsetzung. Habilitationsschrift. Philosophische Fakultät. Universität Bonn. Yee, N. (2005, in press). The Psychology of MMORPGs: emotional investment, motivations, relationship formation, and problematic usage. In R. Schroeder & A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. London: Springer-Verlag. Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3-17.

78

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY HERMANN RÜPPELL studied Psychology at the University of Hamburg and received his PhD in 1973. In 1973 he became Assistant Research Scientist. His first project was “The teaching of intelligence by games”. In 1975 he became Assistant Professor at the University of Bonn. There he developed the Adaptive Learning Environment – an application of Cognitive Psychology to classroom learning. 1985 he became director of the Department of Education at the University of Cologne and full professor. Since then he developed Multi-Media-Training-Programs. The most important of these MM-programs are: DANTE a test for the diagnosis of giftedness, ANA-META training analogical thinking, ALICE – a multi-media lecture for Educational Psychology, TESTING THE LIMITS – a training for intelligence and problemsolving, ROLLING CUBES – a training for specialvisualisation abilities, GLIEVIS – automation of cognitive processes for reading and writing. At the moment he is working on the implementation of the Adaptive Learning Environment in the context of distributed multi-player online-games.

PLANNING AND CONTROL IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Jos Beishuizen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam e-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Educational games, self-regulation tools, simulation, transfer. ABSTRACT Technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs) have been developed to create favourable conditions for cognitive apprenticeship. However, the outcomes of arranging these powerful learning environments have often been disappointing. Two possible causes are discussed: the lack of opportunities for both low road and high learning, and the lack of tools to exert control over the learning process thereby increasing the motivation to develop transferable knowledge. Several examples are discussed of successful experimental TELEs in which proper measures have been taken. An integrative approach to enrich TELEs may turn the school into a true workshop for cognitive apprenticeship. INTRODUCTION Technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs) have created high expectations as far as the quality of learning processes and outcomes are concerned (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998; Lee, 1999). Because of the availability of abundant information in various modalities, the dynamic character of game designs and simulation environments, TELEs are often a closely resembling

model of the real world, allowing students to work on quasi authentic tasks. Students are enabled to work according to their own interest and level of expertise, often in close collaboration with other known or even unknown students. Complex decision making processes are supported by all kinds of tools, hypothesis scratchpads, models, information resources and history facilities. Complex modelling and probabilistic reasoning may be executed by agents in the learning environment, thereby enabling the student to focus on the essential process of problem solving. By externalising the processes of thinking and problem solving, the student can experiment without changing the status of the environment, or share and negotiate ideas with other students. TELEs make the ideal of the school as a workshop for cognitive apprenticeship attainable. As Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989) have explained, creating a learning environment for cognitive apprenticeship requires the application of a number of instructional principles. For instance, the student should be supported by scaffolding measures, which are gradually withdrawn. Problem solving strategies should be developed in a specific order: from simple to complex, from homogeneous to diverse, from global to local. Meta analyses have shown only moderate positive effects of TELEs on learning (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998; Lee, 1999). These effects have been confirmed throughout the recent history of the use of computers in education. In this contribution I want to explore some potential reasons for these 79

disappointing results by distinguishing playing or running a simulation or inquiring in the TELE from learning. Elaborating on this point, I will explore the difference between motivation to play and motivation to learn. Finally, I will suggest an approach to improve the learning potential of technology enhanced learning environments by including planning and control tools.

strategy, or procedure, which then becomes a candidate for transfer; or, alternatively, the rarer case of learning of such a principle, idea, and so on, in abstract form in the first place" (Salomon en Perkins, 1989, p. 126). Salomon and Perkins (1989) gave the example of a manager who, as a student, had acquired planning skills in the context of preparing for an examination, and realises that he can use the same skills in his current job.

MINDFUL ABSTRACTION The fact that students generally enjoy working in a TELE does not necessarily imply that they acquire knowledge that is useful in other situations, that can be transferred outside the TELE itself. Salomon and Perkins (1989) emphasised that, in order to establish transfer, two roads are open; the low road and the high road. The distinction between low road and high road learning has been visualised in the learning triangle (Figure 1). By sheer practice and receiving feedback on his or her performance, the learner acquires low level skills. This kind of low road learning is amply analysed and documented by Anderson (1982, 1993). However, high road learning requires "the deliberate, usually metacognitively guided and effortful, decontextualisation of a principle, main idea,

Induction and deduction are basic steps in the process of acquiring transferable knowledge and conceptual change. Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, & Thagard (1989) defined induction as "all inferential processes that expand knowledge in the face of uncertainty" (p. 8). Expanding knowledge will result in transfer to new situations. Lavoie (1999) added a prediction and discussion phase to a series of biology lessons prepared for 10th grade students, in which the students had to explore the concept of homeostasis by measuring body temperature and context of a cold and hot environment, elaborated on the concept itself and applied it in group discussions to new problems.

Figure 1. The Learning Triangle. The inclusion of a preliminary prediction and discussion phase raised the quality of process skills and logical thinking skills, the level of mastery of the science concepts involved and increased positive attitudes towards science. As Lavoie (1999) explained, developing hypotheses and stating predictions are essential inquiry and problem 80

solving skills. These skills further inductive processes and facilitate the application of concepts or abstract schemas to new problem situations. As Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder (1974) put forward a long time ago, the "quest for control" of both the external environment and the internal domain of thinking is fundamental to children’s cognitive

development. Human beings cannot stop trying to get a cognitive grasp on the world they live in by the processes of induction and deduction. However, the world may be so complex or may be changing so rapidly that necessary time or resources are simply lacking, preventing any learning from occurring apart from simple low road habit formation. TELEs, in particular educational games and simulations, are examples of complex and dynamic environments. In order to allow for learning in these environments, measures should be taken to enable students to acquire transferable knowledge.

•

•

Fantasy: The activity can increase intrinsic motivation by using fantasies as a part of the game universe. These should appeal to the target group emotionally, serve as metaphors for the learning content, and be an endogenous part of the learning material. Interpersonal motivations: This refers to the increased motivation resulting from the social context of the computer game, most directly competition and collaboration with peers. Also the recognition of your peers will serve to motivate.

MOTIVATION AND LEARNING Low road learning requires extensive practice and appropriate feedback enabling the student to adapt his or her performance to the pre-set standards and work towards the pre-set goals. In educational games and simulation environments these preconditions are usually well met. Students are often motivated to prolonged periods of playing, simply by the intrinsically motivating characteristics of the environment. Malone (1980) explained that the essential characteristics of good computer games can be captured in three categories: challenge, fantasy, and curiosity. He later expanded these in collaboration with Lepper (Malone & Lepper, 1987) to five categories. These categories have been proposed for TELEs with a game scenario, but they are relevant for TELEs in general. •

•

•

Challenge: The activity should be of appropriate difficulty level for the player. This is achieved through clear short- term and long-term goals, uncertain outcomes, and facilitating investment of self-esteem through meaningful goals. Furthermore clear, constructive, encouraging feedback is essential. Curiosity: The information in the game should be complex and unknown so as to encourage exploration and organisation of the information, both in relation to the sensory area and the cognitive area. Control: The player should gain the overall feeling of being the controlling party. This is done through a responsive environment, high degree of choice in the environment, and by equipping the player with the ability to perform great effects.

Motivation has been defined as the tendency to start and continue with an activity when (1) the intended outcome is perceived as valuable, and (2) the expectancy of attaining that particular outcome is considered favourable (Rotter, 1954). Four of Malone’s categories refer to intrinsic motivation, the value component of motivation. The category control represents the expectancy part of motivation. High road learning in a TELE requires another layer of motivating characteristics. These characteristics should challenge the student to create knowledge, both declarative and procedural knowledge, at an abstract level. Moreover, students should be able to control and monitor their high road learning process. The TELE should contain tools for self-regulation. Gick and Holyoak (1980) studied the way people use their knowledge about a particular problem to solve a new, analogous problem. They presented their participants with a story of a general's military assault on a fortress on top of a hill. Because the roads to the top are narrow and full of mines, the general has to divide his troops into small groups which simultaneously approach the fortress through many roads. Subsequently, Gick and Holyoak (1980) asked their participants to solve Duncker's (1945) tumour problem in which a stomach tumour has to be destroyed by sending small bundles of weak X-rays from various sources which do not harm intermediate tissue but, together, are strong enough to kill the tumour. Participants used the dispersion solution of the general problem to solve the tumour problem when they noticed the structural similarity between both problems. In a subsequent experiment, Gick and Holyoak (1983) provided two examples prior to the tumour problem. Two variants of the general problem were used, and two new analogous problems were developed, in which a fire had to be extinguished by throwing small amounts 81

of water from many sources around the fire. Participants who received two structurally similar example problems from different domains (like the general and the fire problem) were more successful in solving the tumour problem than participants who received two example problems from the same domain. So, the process of knowledge construction is more successful when two or more examples from different domains are available as a source of experience. If these problems were embedded in a TELE, then the student may be encouraged to transfer solution principles from one problem situation to another, analogous, problem, either by explicit hints or implicitly. Such a TELE would increase the motivation to create abstract schema and, in this way, foster learning. Tools for controlling and monitoring the ongoing learning process may be provided by encouraging learners to keep an electronic portfolio of their achievements in the TELE. Students may store solutions to particular problems in a concise format enabling them to inspect or replay previous episodes. By comparing these episodes, in particular the student's own actions and strategies, conclusions may be drawn on improvements in solution strategies or continuing obstacles. These reflections may lead to renewed attempts to overcome certain problems. The opportunity to log one's performance and reflect on it is, in this way, an aid to controlling and monitoring the high road learning process. FOSTERING HIGH ROAD LEARNING IN TELES Ko (2002) emphasised that educational computer games require the user to make decisions (e.g., gain maximising or probability matching) and that decision making and problem solving require inferences, that is, induction and deduction. Ko (2002) asked a group of 7- year-old children and a group of 10-year-old children to play an inferential problem-solving game eight times at a row. Ko (2002) established developmental changes in inferential problem solving. 10- year-old children made better and fewer moves towards the goal than 7- year-olds. Furthermore, there were significant differences between good and weak performing children that remained stable over the course of eight games. Overall, the children improved significantly over consecutive games. Ko (2002) concluded that general knowledge about how 82

children think and learn enables us to value the promises of educational games. Beishuizen (1992) offered 10th grade students a simulation environment to explore the concept of erosion. Students worked in the game-like environment but needed a debriefing session; a classroom discussion highlighting the relationships between the game and the reality of erosion in third world countries, in order to be able to explain the concept during a post-test. The classroom discussion was necessary to abstract the acquired knowledge from the concrete game environment. When this abstraction process is not initiated, high road learning will not occur. The absence of opportunities to create abstract knowledge is an important cause of lack of learning benefits from TELEs. De Jong and Van Joolingen (1998) reported several studies in which an attempt had been made to support high road learning in a TELE. Van Joolingen and De Jong (1991) provided students with a "hypothesis scratchpad" to support the process of hypothesis generation. Njoo and De Jong (1993) offered students a list of hypotheses to choose from. This improved both learning processes and learning outcomes. Other successful add-ons to TELEs consisted of experimentation hints or graphing tools to specify predicted relationships between independent and dependent variables (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998). In an experimental training study, Beishuizen, Wilhelm and Schimmel (2004) compared two groups of 9 and 10-year-old children. The training group received off-line inquiry learning training with a focus on fostering strategies for proper inferencing and designing experiments. The practice group conducted four inquiry learning tasks during two practice sessions. Learning outcomes and inquiry learning process measures were collected to find out whether training and practice resulted in desired changes in learning behaviour. Both training and practice resulted in better performance during the test problems. Compared to the practice group, the training group showed some advantage in discovering an interaction effect. Practice and training effects appeared to be dependent on type of domain.

FOSTERING SELF-REGULATION IN TELES According to Nelson and Narens (1990), learning always takes place at two levels: the object level and the metalevel. The metalevel contains a model of the object level. On the basis of this model, which is continuously updated, the learner exerts executive control over the learning process. Moreover, the learner monitors the learning process. Monitoring leads to (1) adaptation of the model on the object level, and, consequently, to (2) adaptation of the learning process. Combinations of object level and metalevel can be nested into the object level of a higher control and monitoring loop, leading to recursive cycle of self-regulation activities. TELEs that foster self-regulated learning should provide tools for controlling, monitoring and representing the learning process (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Nelson and Narens’ (1990) view on metacognition. In the TELEPEERS project, Steffens et al. (2005) distinguished three steps in self regulation: "(1) planning the learning activity, (2) executing and monitoring the learning activities and (3) evaluating the outcome of the learning activity." (Steffens et al., 2005, p. 5). These steps require planning and control tools in the learning environment and opportunities for reflection afterwards, either within the TELE itself or within the context of the classroom. De Jong and Van Joolingen (1998) reported several measures that have proven successful to support self-regulation in a TELE. As far as planning is concerned, signalling questions have been added to

simulation environments to help users to plan their explorative activities. Assignments have been developed for the same purpose. Prins (2002) added assignments to a simulation environment with an optical workbench to help student discover Snellius' Law. Without these assignments students were unable to discover any cause-effect relationships. Monitoring can be supported by providing students with tools to keep a record of their discovery process. Such notebook facilities have been added to various TELEs like Reimann's (1991) Refract, Shute and Glaser's (1990) Smithtown, and Lesgold et al.'s (1992) SHERLOCK. Van Tartwijk et al. (2003) showed that electronic portfolios can be used to document individual students' processes of learning. Portfolios may contain materials representing (1) previous work experience, (2) previous courses taken within or outside the current programme, or (3) the competencies or skills to be acquired and the extent to which they have been mastered by the learner (Van Tartwijk et al., 2003, p. 23). These processes are important when various roads lead to achieving the goals set in a particular learning environment. Because of this variety of roads, decisions have to be made about the road to choose. Recording these decisions and the products of learning, collected during the process of learning may help the learner to reflect on the learning process and on the progress made. As Van Tartwijk et al. (2003) argued, electronic portfolios may serve to show the development of the learner or may be used to evaluate and assess the learner's progress.

Creating alternative methods of action

4

Awareness of essential aspects

3

5

Trial

1

Action

2 Looking back on the action

Figure 3. Korthagen's ALACT model reprinted from http://www.uu.nl/content/LevelsinreflectionDEF.doc

83

Korthagen, Koster, Melief & Tighelaar (2002) introduced a spiral model describing the process of reflection; the ALACT model (see Figure 3). The acronym ALACT stands for Action, Looking back on the action, Awareness of essential aspects, Creating alternative methods of action, and Trial. In the context of working in TELEs, a learner may have run a number of simulations and is now looking at the results of the simulations in order to figure out what kind of model behind the simulation is responsible for the outcomes. The learner may discover that his or her manipulations of independent variables are related to changes in the value of outcome variables, but that s/he cannot conclude any kind of causal model because of the fact that s/he did not systematically alter one variable at a time. S/he therefore may decide to try out a more systematic experimenting strategy in order to arrive at justifiable conclusions about the underlying model. This process of reflection may be supported by an electronic portfolio in which various actions and accompanying outcomes have been stored.

CONCLUSIONS Two conclusions can be drawn. The first one is that technology enhanced learning environments often lack tools for high road learning. The second conclusion is that motivation to enhance selfregulation skills, as part of the high road learning outcomes that belong to the aims of using technology enhanced learning environments, is often not properly taken into consideration. Both factors may account for the lack of learning benefits of TELEs. However, this is not the end of the story. As we have seen, planning and control tools and opportunities for reflection, enabling students to develop selfregulation skills, can be devised and added to technology enhanced learning environments. A first step is the actual identification of the availability or lack of necessary tools and opportunities. The instruments developed in the TELEPEERS project, are useful in pinpointing the availability of necessary preconditions for acquiring self-regulation skills. The next step is to develop the tools and enrich technology enhanced learning environments to such an extent that they become real opportunities for low road and high road learning. An example of 84

a successful integrative approach is Zhang, Chen, Sun, & Reid's (2004) experimental learning support system to simulation environments in which 13year-old students had to explore the upthrusts (buoyant forces) upon objects either submerged or floating in water. The learning support system encompassed three components: (a) interpretative support fostering knowledge development and conceptual understanding, (b) experimental support enabling students to develop and carry out valid experimental methods, and (c) reflective support increasing the students' self-awareness and helping them in the processes of induction and deduction. Such an integrative approach, aimed at fostering low and high road learning by providing tools for planning and control, offers promising opportunities for turning the school into a successful workshop for cognitive apprenticeship. REFERENCES Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406. Anderson, J.R. (Ed.) (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Beishuizen, J.J. (1992). Studying a complex knowledge domain by exploration or explanation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 8, 104-117. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 453 - 494. De Jong, T., and Van Joolingen. W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 2, 179 - 201. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem- solving (translated by L.S. Lees). Psychological Monographs, 58, 270. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355. Gick, M.L., and Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 138. Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E., and Thagard, P.R. (1989). Induction. Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. Karmiloff-Smith, A., and Inhelder, B. (1974). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition, 3, 195 - 212. Ko, S. (2002). An empirical analysis of children's thinking and learning in a computer game context. Educational Psychology, 22, 2, 219-243. Korthagen, F., Koster, B., Melief, K. and Tighelaar, A. (2002). Docenten leren reflecteren. Systematische reflectie in de opleiding en begeleiding van leraren

[Teachers learn to reflect. Systematic reflection in teaching and coaching teachers]. Soest: uitgeverij Nelissen. Lavoie, D.R. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypotheticopredictive reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 10, 1127-1147. Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: a meta analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 71-85. Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S., Bunzo, M., and Eggan, G. (1992). SHERLOCK: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In J.H. Larkin & R.W. Chabay (Eds.), Computer-Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 201-239. Malone, T. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Unpublished dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University. Malone, T.W. and Lepper, M.R. (1987). Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. In R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, Vol. 3, Conative and Affective Process Analyses. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 223 – 253. Nelson, T. O., and Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 125-173. Njoo, M., and de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821-844. Prins, F. (2002). Search & See. The role of metacognitive skillfulness and intellectual ability during novice inductive learning in a complex computer-simulated environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Leiden: Leiden University. Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reimann, P. (1991). Detecting functional relations in a computerized discovery environment. Learning & Instruction, 1, 45-65. Salomon, G., and Perkins, D.N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113 142. Shute, V.J., and Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 5177. Steffens, K., et al. (2005). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Manuscript in preparation. Van Joolingen, W.R., and De Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389-404.

Van Tartwijk, J., Driessen, E., Hoeberigs, B., Kösters, J., Ritzen, M., Stokking, K. and Van der Vleuten, C. (2003). Werken met een eletronisch portfolio [Working with an electronic portfolio]. Utrecht/Groningen: SURF/Wolters Noordhoff. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y. and Reid, D.J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 4, 269-282.

AUTHOR BIOGRAHPY JOS BEISHUIZEN studied psychology study at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (major: cognitive psychology). His PhD thesis reported a study on searching for information in electronic databases, in which different search strategies (depth-first and breadth-first search) were identified and subsequently trained by a computer coach. He is currently professor of educational science and leading the Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This institute provides teacher training courses for university graduates, and services for quality assurance, improvement of university education and development of electronic learning environments.

85

86

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART C: THE VIEW FROM COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

87

88

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: THE VIEW FROM COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE Donatella Persico Institute for Educational Technology Italian National Research Council Via de Marini 6 16149, Genova Italy E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Cognitive apprenticeship, communities of practice, computer supported collaborative learning, selfregulated learning, situated learning, social constructivism, virtual learning communities, INTRODUCTION There are several ingredients that bring together the papers featured in the third section of this volume. The first is, of course, the very concept of Self Regulated Learning (SRL), as it has been developed both in the related literature and, more specifically, within the TELEPEERS project. The second is the idea of Community of Practice (CoP), first investigated by Lave and Wenger (1991) and reinforced by studies on knowledge management and virtual learning communities. But besides these two core concepts, whose relationship is quite problematic for the reasons that are outlined in the following, there are other ingredients that make up the recipe of this enlightening series of papers: social constructivist learning, cognitive apprenticeship and situated cognition, as well as practice-based research as a master route for teachers’ professional development. The relationship between the SRL and the CoP concepts turns out to be quite problematic, especially if SRL refers to individual learning, as it usually does in the field literature. There is, in fact, an intrinsic contradiction between the idea of individuals controlling how, when, what and where to learn, and

the need to negotiate the same aspects, or parts of them, with the other members of a learning community. However, if we consider that there is no CoP without social, motivational, emotional and cognitive control of its inner processes, then its strict relationship with the component model of SRL clearly follows. While early studies about CoPs concern professionals working for organisations or companies, many of the following papers share the view that teacher professional development is one of the fields where CoPs appear to be very promising. As a matter of fact, most of the teachers’ knowledge is tacit and quite difficult to make explicit, and is often distributed among several people. It is therefore suitable to be dealt with within a CoP. Furthermore, it is best developed through experiential learning or, to use Preston’s words, through “practice-based research”, where competence is built through dialogue and critical reflection of both theory and practice. It is at this point that the learning theory of social constructivism and the ideas of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1989) and situated learning (Brown et al., 1989) come into play. They provide the theoretical background for CoPs and, more generally, for learning communities. These kinds of environments require a certain amount of self-regulation, but they also foster the development of related skills. Learning communities, by definition, tend to encourage the development of the social

89

component of SRL. The emotional and motivational components, even when not explicitly addressed by the software environment, are often catered for by the members of the community. The well known techniques of scaffolding and fading, as well as confrontation with authentic problems, also favour the assumption of responsibility and autonomy both in cognitive and meta-cognitive activities. Besides these common points, the views that emerge from the papers in this section are quite diverse and rich. A SYNOPSIS Bettoni provides the theoretical framework by reelaborating the literature on CoPs in light of recent developments in knowledge management where the importance of community learning is stressed as opposed to individual learning. Preston proposes a very good example: the MirandaNET Fellowship, a community of teachers that seems to possess a number of important features identified as key factors for the success of an educational CoP. Indeed, these features have allowed MirandaNET to stay alive and active for more than a decade! Frank and Dommaschk focus on the relationship between SRL and the constructivist paradigm by illustrating first the theoretical aspects, including CoPs as self-regulating entities, and by then discussing an example from their experience in the “Leipziger Online Seminar”. A complementary view of the same example is provided by Brüggen, whose contribution presents the results obtained by analysing the ILIAS TELE with one of the tools proposed by the TELEPEERS consortium. The conclusions reached by Brüggen are in agreement with Dettori and colleagues where they claim that much of the TELEs potential to support collaborative learning at a distance comes from the educational model adopted and the learning community itself. In addition, their findings tell us that there are strategies that lend themselves better than others to encouraging and developing SRL. A very powerful strategy consists of putting the learners in the shoes of the designers and tutors of learning events, as Brüggen and colleagues have done. More generally, role-play seems to lend itself to this purpose particularly well.

90

Correia and Lencastre take us away from the world of mature learners and discuss the challenge of developing SRL skills in children. They present a study concerning Dragons Pathways, a TELE that intends to stimulate and develop creativity and imagination. The potential for SRL with this software has been evaluated in the light of a very rich literature review, including the results of the TELEPEERS project. In particular, the software appears to promote SRL due to the features that allow users to establish their own goals and strive to attain them by “being strategic”, rather than “having a strategy”. Still within the domain of young students but moving to a more institutional context, the classroom, Pape discusses the Classroom Connectivity Project. This project focuses on the teaching and learning of algebra and physical science in secondary schools. The goal is the development of higher order cognitive skills including SRL strategic behaviours, so important in scientific competence. According to the author, teachers can be helped to reach this goal by connected classroom technology, a “networked system of handheld calculators and a computer combined with aggregation and control software specifically designed for interactive teaching”. The value added of this TELE consists in allowing teachers to provide timely and accurate feedback on students’ strategic effort, therefore scaffolding SRL development. To conclude, it appears that the concepts of CoP and SRL intertwine a great deal both in theory and in practice. One of the fields where studies and experiments on this subject are giving very promising results is teacher professional development. Powerful support to SRL in this area can be provided by several kinds of TELEs: from systems that allow computer mediated communication, to applications that encourage children’s strategic reasoning. The tools and ideas developed by the TELEPEERS consortium will hopefully inform further research in this field. REFERENCES Brown, J. S., Collins A. and Duguid P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42. Collins, A. Brown, J. S. and Newman S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor

of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 453-494. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TELEPEERS consortium (2005). Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Draft, Version 1.0 (May 31, 2005)

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY DONATELLA PERSICO has been working since 1981 as a researcher at the Institute for Educational

Technology of the Italian National Research Council. Her main interests include the theory and application of educational technology, with particular reference to instructional design, e-learning, teacher training and self-regulated learning. She is the author of educational material and scientific publications of various kinds, including books, educational software, multimedia material and several research papers concerning aspects of educational technology. She is on the editorial board of international and national journals on educational technology and has been in charge of several national and international projects.

91

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AS A METHOD FOR KNOWLEDGE-ORIENTED COOPERATION Marco Bettoni, Research & Consulting Swiss Distance Learning University of Applied Sciences (FFHS) Postfach, Überlandstr. 12, 3900 Brig Switzerland E-mail: [email protected] © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Communities of practice, human-oriented knowledge management, knowledge-oriented cooperation, knowledge stewarding, participation. ABSTRACT After a short historical review of the development of the concept of “Communities of Practice” (CoP) we present examples of organisational Knowledge Management (KM) in which Etienne Wenger's CoP model has been applied. In the main part we focus on the business orientated CoP framework that Wenger, Snyder and McDermott proposed in 2002 for KM by extending the original approach of 1998. Finally we conclude with a critical reflection over the necessity within KM frameworks - to explicitly emphasise participation in stewarding knowledge as a condition for bridging the gap between knowledge and its management. INTRODUCTION How can the employee pawn her knowledge to her team or enterprise without doing harm to herself? This difficulty shows us that a vital gap exists between individual knowledge and organizational knowledge management (KM), a gap similar to that between freedom and politics (Rousseau, 1762). Communities of Practice (CoP), as a method for knowledge-oriented cooperation (KOC), can help to bridge this gap especially because by them the

92

requirement that people must be placed in the centre of KM could be realized. In the last 15 years the “knowledge environment” of most teams and enterprises has become increasingly more dynamic, products and processes more knowledge-intensive (Probst et al., 1997, p.30) and it has become clear „that the person, the subject, the individual employee deserves again a more important role in the production process” (Dick and Wehner, 2002, p.12). In this context, dealing with tacit knowledge became an important challenge and this contributed to the development of the discipline of knowledge management. Since then, the claim that the human being must be placed in the centre of KM has been raised again and again, in the management literature although, „up to now almost no means or even tools have been elaborated, for meeting this requirement” (Clases and Wehner, 2002, p.46). Why? An important reason might lie in the reduction of the “human factor” to its individual dimension. Such a concept of a „one dimensional person” indeed matches the insight, that strictly speaking only individuals are able to produce knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, p.59 and p.239), but leads however, by overlooking the social dimension, to a contradiction with the conception of knowledge as socially mediated knowledge (Clases, 2003): this contradiction then prevents the fulfilment of the mentioned claim. The great importance for KM of the concept of Communities of Practice lies in the opportunity to overcome this contradiction because together with technological and organisational aspects, now also

human aspects - for example human factors (Bettoni and Schneider, 2002), socialisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and social capital (Lesser and Prusak, 1999) - can be taken into account, both in their individual and social dimension. HISTORICAL RETROSPECT Communities of practice (CoP) were recognized relatively early by single researchers and organization consultants as a suitable unit of analysis for research in work organization (Jordan, 1994) as well as excellent as “platforms for knowledge work” and therefore for successful knowledge management (Schmitz and Zucker, 1996, pp.156ff). The CoP concept continued, however, to be largely unmentioned for the time being in the mainstream KM literature: for example two KM bestseller (Probst et al., 1997; North, 1998) did not even outline the CoP approach. Lave and Wenger had initially specified the CoP notion only intuitively as “an intrinsic condition for the existence of knowledge” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p.98). Wenger further developed later the intuitive CoP term in a systematic, comprehensive manner (within the framework of his social theory of learning focused on participation, Wenger, 1998b, p.7) as a special kind of community in which practice served as a source of inner cohesion and justified as follows the choice of the term (Wenger, 1998b, p.72): „… collective learning results in practices that reflect both the pursuit of our enterprises and the attendant social relations. These practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise. It makes sense, therefore, to call these kinds of communities 'communities of practice'." (Wenger, 1998b, p.45). In the second half of the 90ies communities and networks were more and more recognized and used as valuable concepts for implementing new forms of knowledge sharing (North et al., 2000; Schmidt, 2000; Henschel, 2001; Lesser and Storck, 2001) and many organizations began to design their KM solutions as communities or as networks (Le Moult, 2001; Kok et al., 2003; Saint-Onge and Wallace, 2003). They had intuitively recognised that a big gap separates knowledge and KM as well as individuals and enterprises - because every person is inseparably bound to his or her tacit knowledge - and that communities and networks allow this to be bridged.

COP EXAMPLES Communities of practice which tried to implement Wenger's CoP model as an instrument of KM were built in many industrial and commercial organizations. Since 2003 Volkswagen has promoted so called “Job Families” which are company-wide competence communities (Schultz et al., 2003). Daimler Chrysler supports since 1997 so called “Tech Clubs” which are networks of engineers in car development (Wenger et al., 2002). At Airbus, British Petroleum, Cap Gemini Ernst and Young, Clarica, Eli Lilly, Ford, Hewlett Packard, IBM, McKinsey, Mercedes-Benz, Schlumberger, Shell Oil and the World Bank, Wenger and his colleagues were involved in implementing different kinds of CoPs like helping communities, best practice communities or innovation communities (Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger and Benninger, 2002). The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) financed 16 CoPs within its national program for vocational education (Mitchell, 2002). Siemens has a companywide CoP for knowledge sharing among people working in implementing knowledge management initiatives (Enkel et al., 2000). Achmea (one of the 3 greatest insurance groups in Holland) has employeenetworks for exploiting synergies between a great number of independent business units (Dignum and van Eeden, 2003). Wenger's CoP model was used also as an analytical instrument, however, only as a very coarse frame of reference so that essential parts (as for example “participation”) remained mainly unconsidered. Arnold and Smith (2003) analyzed an Online Learning Community with regard to the interplay between context and technology; Ruuska and Vartiainen (2003) have identified social structures and used them as reference for analysing knowledge sharing; Osterlund and Carlile (2003) examined the knowledge sharing practice in complex organizations from a relational perspective on social realities; Stuckey et al. (2002) have investigated how to support teachers and doctors in the utilization of innovative ICT technologies; Smith and Coenders (2002) implemented and tested a feedback-instrument for an Online workshop; finally Manca and Sarti (2002) dealt with means for supporting virtual learning communities: they have analyzed their needs and derived functions of ICT systems which can satisfy those needs.

93

THE EXTENDED COP MODEL AS A KM APPROACH Wenger (1998), in his social theory of learning published under the title "Communities of Practice" still today the most comprehensive theoretical inquiry into the CoP topic - had focused on learning as social participation. ‘Social participation’ meant for him “not just participation to local events of engagement in certain activities with certain people” but “a more encompassing process” including (Wenger, 1998b, p.4): • the active participation to the practices of social communities • the construction of identities in relation to these communities • the way in which life and the world are experienced as meaningful. In the course of the application of this theory to the development of communities of practice for international companies and organizations it became however clear that cultivating a CoP was a very challenging task in face of which most managers seemed rather helpless. Wenger and his colleagues recognized that: „…it is not particularly easy to build and sustain communities of practice or to integrate them with the rest of an organization“ (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, p.140) and that managers, since they were unable to deal with the social theory of learning, had to be supported with other means than theory for accomplishing the task of cultivating CoPs: “The first step for managers now is to understand what these communities are and how they work. The second step is to realize that they are the hidden fountainhead of knowledge development and therefore the key to the challenge of the knowledge economy. The third step is to appreciate the paradox that these informal structures require specific managerial efforts to develop them and to integrate them into the organization so that their full power can be leveraged.” (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, p.145). This led to the development of a practical guide for the implementation of CoPs in organizations (Wenger et al., 2002); in this work the original, theoretical CoP concept of 1998 was extended with explicit references to Knowledge Management and so became a truly structured, application oriented KM approach. The substantial theoretical innovations in relation to the theory from 1998 are (Bettoni et al., 2004):

94

• the concept of knowledge as an organisational challenge and the seven design principles • the organisational learning loop within the knowledge system of the enterprise • the structural CoP model • a clarification of the CoP definition • the five stages of development All these innovations extend the original CoP concept to a complete model of a new organizational form and can thus be used as a method both for designing and sustaining a CoP as well as for the analysis of its structural aspects and development characteristics. They represent the main points, to which one should pay attention, when designing, developing and supporting communities of practice. The concept of knowledge and seven design principles Understanding the concept of knowledge represents one of the main problem areas for the functioning of real knowledge communities (North et al., 2000, 56). Furthermore it determines the first 2 of 7 „deadly sins” of KM (Schneider, 2001). More than ever before, today in our “small planet” the task of stewarding knowledge individually or collectively, privately or in organisations, requires first of all the insight that knowledge is not a „thing“ that can be managed like other assets. In line with recent developments in knowledge theory (von Glasersfeld, 1995) the reasons for this view can be summarized in four key points about the essence of knowledge (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.8ff): • Knowledge lives in the human act of knowing • Knowledge is tacit as well as explicit • Knowledge is social as well as individual • Knowledge is dynamic It is exactly this „interactive” nature of knowledge which makes organisational and transorganisational knowledge management a challenge. Knowledge cannot be considered as material of enterprise processing (for example in order procedures or other business processes) but should be seen as a tacit resource intimately bound to the human being - as a „subjective model of reality” (Dick and Wehner, 2003, p.14) - and to his social interactions as a socially oriented model of reality. Given this knowledge challenge, how can we design for sustainable knowledge interactions? The

following principles focus on the insight that CoPs are living entities and require an approach that acknowledges the importance of passion, relationships and voluntary activities in organizations (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.51ff): • design for evolution • open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives • invite different levels of participation • develop both public and private community spaces • focus on value • combine familiarity and excitement • create a rhythm for the interactions The organisational learning loop within the knowledge system of the enterprise Every company, every organization has a knowledge system which, however, is rarely consciously perceived and systematically organized (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.166ff). Many knowledge resources remain thus unused. A knowledge system consists of two closely connected process groups: a) Stewarding knowledge - This group encompasses processes like acquiring, developing, making transparent, sharing and preserving knowledge. They are used for handing down, reproducing and renewing knowledge and experience. What should be noticed here is that these processes are not considered at a cognitive but at a coordinative-cooperative level (see the cooperation model by Wehner et al., 1998): knowledge stewarding therefore does not directly intervene in individual cognitive processes, as too easily alleged by certain critics of KM (Malik, 2001).

Figure 1: Organisational Knowledge System

Figure 2: Experience and Knowledge Flow in the Organisational Learning Loop

b) Applying knowledge – This group collects what happens when knowledge resources are used, for example in business processes. In an enterprise an organisational learning loop is established, if employees of the formal organization (teams, departments) also participate informally and simultaneously in CoPs (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.18ff).

A CoP consists of three fundamental elements or core design dimensions that mutually influence each other and should be kept in balance (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.27ff): knowledge domain, community and practice:

This multiple membership creates a learning loop which has its focal point in the employee: she gains experiences in her daily work within business processes and can incorporate them in the CoP, where this knowledge is stewarded collectively and prepared for filtering back to the business processes from where it originated.

- The knowledge domain is a collection of topics, key issues, problems and open points that CoP members commonly experience in their daily work and that are of great importance to them. It is an area of expertise that brings people together with passion, guides the questions they ask and the way they organize their knowledge and creates a sense of accountability to the

The structural CoP model

95

development of a practice. CoP members can take responsibility to provide the organization with the best knowledge and skills in the domain to which they are committed. - The community consists of the personal and institutional relationships between the members and includes the members as persons, their ties, their interactions (regularity, frequency and rhythm), the atmosphere, the evolution of individual and collective identities and, last but not least, spaces (physical or virtual) for meeting together. This element is very important because it accounts for the social aspects of stewarding knowledge, applying it and learning together. - The practice covers frameworks, standards, ideas, instruments, stories, experiences, lessons learned and documents that community members share. It denotes a specific, collectively elaborated know how about ways of doing things in a specific domain. These three elements form together an ideal knowledge structure as a social structure which can take over the responsibility for stewarding a specific domain of expertise in an organization. A clarification of the CoP definition The three elements of the structural model facilitate a clarification of the definition of CoP through a clearer differentiation from other social structures. They also represent different aspects of participation and identity and can therefore help in understanding the motivation of the members. A CoP can thus be defined as a group or network of persons (Wenger et al., 2002, p.4 and pp.40ff), that functions as an informal organisational structure, whose members participate voluntarily, based on collegial relationships not reporting relationships, share the interest and the passion in a knowledge domain, develop as persons by mutual relationships which are grounded in the collective stewarding of a knowledge domain and apply the results in their daily job. All the members come together from different hierarchical and functional fields of the organization attracted by “self identification” and form an „open and organically developing group of persons“ (Lakoni at al., 2001, p.81). The five stages of development

96

Features for the analysis and design of a CoP can also be identified from structuring its evolution into distinguishable moments (phases or stages). The lifecycle of a CoP can be subdivided into 5 stages (Wenger, 1998a, p.3; Wenger et al., 2002, pp.68ff): potential, coalescing, maturing, stewardship, transformation. In the course of this evolution the features to be developed change; hence the related management challenges and activities must also be modified accordingly. (1) Potential: in the first stage the CoP does not exist at all or it is only a weak network of persons that are facing similar problems and tasks but meet only rarely; although the potential members already carry in themselves the potential for the development of stronger relationships, a CoP would be unlikely to arise spontaneously. For this purpose you need explicit planning and launch activities. Many authors restrict the CoP concept to spontaneously arisen, informal networks: Wenger has however explicitly denied this restriction (Wolf, 2003a): from his experience it does not matter how the community started (spontaneously or at the instigation of management), in both cases they require engagement on the part of people and some kind of sponsorship from the management. In the potential stage the main task consists in planning the CoP: determining the knowledge domain and its scope, finding persons that are already connected in the chosen field, identifying common needs for knowledge and skills. (2) Coalescing: In the second stage the members should be supported in building relationships by a suitable interaction model. The main task consists here of ‚nurturing' the CoP: determining the value that sharing knowledge in the chosen field has for the members and for the organization, building trust and personal relationships between the members, for example by promoting mutual understanding, discovering the kind of knowledge whose sharing would be most useful and determining suitable ways of sharing. In this stage of incubation the great challenge for the CoP consists in balancing two opposite demands: „the need to let its members develop relationship and trust against the early need to demonstrate the value of the community” (Wenger et al., 2002, p.83). (3) Maturing: This stage is characterized by an increase in the mutual engagement and a higher dynamics. The CoP deals particularly with the clarification of its primary intentions, its role in the

organization as well as its boundaries. The members feel more and more the need to organize the knowledge of the community, the core group identifies gaps in the knowledge of the CoP and seeks opportunities to focus on that systematically, for example through the development of a “knowledge repository”. The number of members can rapidly increase in this stage and introduce new impulses but also thwart the plans of the core group. The challenge consists of resolving the tension between growth and internal focus: for this purpose the CoP must both preserve the existing trust in spite of its growth as well as further develop spontaneous mutual help in spite of systematization. (4) Stewardship: In this stage the CoP continues its work for the systematic organization of the common body of knowledge: expertise and personal relationships are extended and deepened, tools and instruments are further developed. The CoP feels pride now for its own achievements, it sees itself as an owner of the knowledge domain it is in charge of and is conscious of its own identity and voice in the organization. In order to maintain the relevance of its knowledge field however, the CoP also needs to be open to new ideas, approaches and relationships: „A community needs to balance its sense of ownership with receptivity to new people and ideas” (Wenger et al., 2002, p.105). This openness must however be more than just a willingness to accept new members: it requires the active search for new ideas, new members and renewal in the leadership.

Although it seems to be obvious that „in a knowledge organization participation is no more merely a normative postulate, but necessary and natural” (Dick and Wehner, 2002, p.18) and although social participation plays a central role in the theory of Wenger (1998), in the extended CoP approach, Wenger et al. (2002) have not directly addressed participation in the social practice of the community except for in two places: a short consideration of the structural elements as aspects of participation, and the explanation of the third design principle (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.44-45 and pp.55-58). Besides this, the term „participation” is not mentioned at all, so for example in connection with the discussion of internal leadership tasks, what is especially amazing here is if one considers that all members of the CoP should in principle contribute to the different leading roles (coordination, facilitation, domain stewarding and so forth) or be internally trained for that. Wenger et al. (2002) defend also with respect to CoP, that leadership is a very participatory approach although they do not refer to it explicitly. Why this discrepancy between the theory of 1998 and their later extension in the work of 2002 in the consideration and exposition of participation? One reason is probably that participation is so to speak “integrated” in the extended approach so that it would not have to be mentioned - in the ideal case - explicitly. The problem in this case is, however, that an important element remains hidden so that faulty interpretations - in which participation remains unconsidered - become more probable.

(5) Transformation: The end of a CoP can have very different causes: technological evolutions can make the knowledge domain obsolete, structural modifications can let the benefit for the organization disappear, or the interests of the members can progressively diverge. As a result of such events the attraction of the CoP and the influx of new topics can be reduced, the community progressively loses members and reduces its activities more and more until nobody shows up to the community events. A CoP can also merge with another, split into several smaller CoPs or be institutionalized as a department. Whatever the transformation will be, the heritage of the CoP will live on in the experiences of its members and increase the ability of the organization to build further communities of practice.

However, without taking social participation seriously, the crucial questions of KM (Dick and Wehner, 2002, p.18) can barely or only unsatisfactorily be answered and a community of practice can hardly be successful. Wenger presented the reasons for that in his main work from 1998. He defined participation as „social experience of living in the world in terms of membership in social communities” (Wenger, 1998b, p.55), which forms a unit with reification as a “process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal this experience into ‘thingness’” (Wenger, 1998b, p.58). Unit means that the two processes cannot be considered in isolation, that one cannot be understood without the other one, that only in co-ordination can they generate meaning.

PARTICIPATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Hence the ‘conditio sine qua non’ for having communities of practice becomes a reliable way to a human oriented knowledge management lies in taking

97

seriously legitimate participation in stewarding knowledge: this is necessary for cultivating them successfully and succeeding in bridging the gap that separates knowledge and knowledge management. REFERENCES AACE (2002). Proceedings of the World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education (E-Learn 2002 CD-Rom). Montreal: October 15-19, www.aace.org. Arnold, P. and Smith, J.D. (2003). Adding connectivity and losing context with ICT: Contrasting learning situations from a community of practice perspective. In Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (2003), 465-484. Bettoni, M., Clases, C. and Wehner, T. (2004). Initiierung, Einführung, Evaluation von Communities of Practice. In: Reinmann, G. and Mandl, H. (2004) Psychologie des Wissensmanagement. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Bettoni, M. and Schneider, S. (2002). Experience Management - Lessons Learned from Knowledge Engineering. In Minor, M. and Staab, S. (2002), 117-128. Clases, C. (2003). Eine arbeitspsychologische Perspektive auf soziale Dynamiken kooperativer Wissensproduktion. In Franz H. W., Howaldt, J., Jacobsen, H. and Kopp, R. (Hrsg.): Forschen - Lernen - Beraten. Der Wandel von Wissensproduktion und -transfer in den Sozialwissenschaften. Berlin: sigma. Clases, C. and Wehner, T. (2002). Handlungsfelder im Wissensmanagement. In Lüthy, W., Voit, E. and Wehner, T. (2002), 39-56. Dick, M., and Wehner, T. (2002). Wissensmanagement zur Einführung: Bedeutung, Definition, Konzepte. In Lüthy, W., Voit, E. and Wehner, T. (2002), 7-28. Dignum, V., van Eeden, P. (2003). Seducing, engaging and supporting communities at Achmea. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management, Oxford, 18-19 Sept., 253-262. Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (2003). Communities and Technologies. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Communities and Technologies. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jordan, B. (1994). Ethnographic Workplace Studies and Computer Supported Cooperative Work. IRL Report No. IRL94-0026. In Shapiro, D. et al. (1996). Kok, G., Jongedijk, S. and Troost, J. (2003). Insights from KPMG's European Knowledge Management Survey 2002/2003. KPMG Knowledge Advisory Services, Netherland. http://www.kpmg.nl/kas. Lakoni, S., Schwämmle, U, and Thiel, M. (2001). Zwischen Chat-room und Kantine. Wie "Communities of Practice" zu Innovation und Veränderung beitragen. Profile, 2, 74-84. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Le Moult, D. (2001). How to make a CoP fly. KnowledgeBoard, 6.12.2002.

98

Lesser, E., and Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of Practice, Social Capital and Organisational Knowledge. White Paper, IBM Institute for Knowledge Management, http://ikm.ihost.com. Lesser, E. L., and Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, 40 (4), 831-841. Lüthy, W., Voit, E. and Wehner, T. (2002). Wissensmanagement - Praxis. Einführung, Handlungsfelder und Fallbeispiele. Zürich: vdf. Malik, F. (2001). Wie Kopfarbeiter gemanagt werden. Basler Zeitung, 16.07.2001, Ressort: Wirtschaft, Rubrik „Der BaZ-Gast“, (163), 14. Manca, S. and Sarti, L., (2002). Comunità virtuali per l'apprendimento e nuove tecnologie. Tecnologie Didattiche, 25 (1), 11-19. Minor, M. and Staab, S. (2002). 1-st German Workshop on Experience Management. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) Vol P-10. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Mitchell, J. (2002). The Potential of Communities of Practice to underpin the National Training Framework. Melbourne: ANTA. Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The KnowledgeCreating Company. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. North, K., (1998). Wissensorientierte Unternehmensführung. Wertschöpfung durch Wissen. Wiesbaden: Gabler. North, K., Romhardt, K. and Probst, G. (2000). Wissensgemeinschaften. Keimzellen lebendigen Wissensmanagement. io management, 7/8, 52-62. Osterlund, C. and Carlile, P. (2003). How Practice Matters: A Relational View of Knowledge Sharing. In Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (2003), 1-22. Probst, G., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (1997). Wissen managen. Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource optimal nutzen. Zürich: Verlag NZZ. Rousseau, J.J. (1762). Du contrat social. In: Oeuvres Complètes, III. Paris: Gallimard, 1964. Ruuska, I. and Vartiainen, M. (2003). Communities and other Social Structures for Knowledge Sharing. A Case Study in an Internet Consultancy Company. In Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. 163-183. Saint-Onge, H. and Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Schmitz, C. and Zucker, B., (1996). Wissen gewinnt. Knowledge Flow Management. Düsseldorf: Metropolitan. Schneider, U. (2001). Die 7 Todsünden im Wissensmanagement. Frankfurt a/M: FAZ Schultz, F. and Pucher, H.F. (2003). www.deck – Wissensmanagement bei Volkswagen. Industrie Management, 19 (3), 64-66. Shapiro, D., Tauber, M. and Traunmüller R. (Eds.) (1996). The Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Groupware Systems. Amsterdam: North Holland / Elsevier Science. Smith, J.D. and Coenders, M. (2002). E-feedback to reflect legitimate peripheral participation. In AACE, 2002.

Spiess, E. (1998). Formen der Kooperation. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Stuckey, B., Buehring, A. and Fraser, S. (2002). Communities of Practice and On-Line Support for Dissemination and Implementation of Innovation. In AACE, 2002. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism. A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press. Wehner, T., Clases, C., Endres, E. and Raeithel, A. (1998). Zwischenbetriebliche Kooperation. Zusammenarbeit als Ereignis und Prozess. In E. Spiess (Hrsg.), Formen der Kooperation Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie, 95-124. Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of Practice. Learning as a Social System. Systems Thinker, June 1998, 1-10. Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Wenger, E., Benninger, M.L. et al. (2002). Communities of Practice for Improved Learning Systems in the Corporate, Government, Higher Education and Health Care Sectors. In AACE, 2002. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E., and Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organisational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78, (1), 139-145. Wolf, P. (2003)a. Interview with Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice. Knowledge-Board, 3.11.2003, www.knowledgeboard.com. Wolf, P. (2003b). Erfolgsmessung der Einführung von Wissensmanagement. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY MARCO BETTONI was born in Legnano (Italy) in 1952. Since September 2005 he has been Director of Research & Consulting at the Swiss Distance Learning University of Applied Sciences (www.fernfachhochschule.ch).

After receiving his masters degree in mechanical engineering in 1977 (ETH Zürich) he worked until 1987 for industrial (Rieter, Siemens), banking (UBS) and academic (ETH) organizations in the domains of machine design, engineering education, IT management and IT development. From 1987 to 1991 he has been project leader and knowledge engineer in the development of knowledge-based systems and has been privately involved in cognitive science foundations research since 1981. Between 1991 and 2004 Marco Bettoni was Professor for Knowledge Technologies at the Basel University of Applied Sciences (FHBB) where his main tasks were teaching post-graduate courses, consulting with enterprises and government and doing applied research. His main domain of competence is that of Knowledge Technologies which include Artificial Intelligence (especially Knowledge Engineering) and Knowledge Management, focusing on human aspects and Knowledge Cooperation. In June 2003 ETH Zürich (www.ethz.ch) appointed him as ‘guest researcher’ as a special recognition for his research contributions in the individual and social aspects of Knowledge Management. CO-AUTHORS Christoph Clases Solothurn University of Applied Sciences (FHSO) Riggenbachstrasse 16, CH - 4600 Olten, Switzerland [email protected] Theo Wehner Center for Organizational and Work Sciences Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETH Zürich) Kreuzplatz 5, CH - 8032 Zürich, Switzerland [email protected]

99

THE MIRANDANET FELLOWSHIP: A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE DEVELOPING SELF-REGULATING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Chistina Preston Director MirandaNet International Reserach Centre Southampton University Highfield Campus, Southampton SO 17 1 BJ, UK E-Mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Communities of practice, continuing professional development, information and communication technologies, self-regulated learning. ABSTRACT This article discusses the results of the MirandaNet Fellowship approach to self-regulated learning in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Information and Communications Technology (ICT). The theories and practice, which have been developed by MirandaNet Fellows since 1992, are innovative in the sense that they base the model on practice-based research, the building of communities of practice (CoPs) and attention to the semiotics of multimodal learning environments. The focus of the paper is a pilot ICT CPD programme in efacilitation that was delivered face to face and in a customized VLE which had the qualities of a dynamic e-journal. What is interesting is that the teachers in this pilot on e-facilitation who embarked on this model of self-regulation did significantly better in conventional essay accreditation than teachers who follow a more traditional academic training route. The discussion expresses concerns that much of what was learnt about the process of efacilitation was not accredited because conventional higher education assessment had no space for multimodal processes. The discussion also summarises the notions about professionalism, which appear throughout the paper. Suggestions are

100

made in the conclusions about the potential of ejournal publication to facilitate the sharing of professional evidence. The purpose of this would be to increase the opportunities for teachers in England to engage not only in self-regulated learning, but also in a self- regulated profession. INTRODUCTION The focus of this article is about appropriate Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programmes for teachers in Information and Communications Technology (ICT). The article examines strategies to introduce self-regulated learning. This term refers to circumstances where the teachers as lead-learner are free to decide what, when, where and how to learn. This implies that the learning in traditional institutions - in schools and universities- is only partly self-regulated and partly teacher/instructor regulated or regulated by the affordances and requirements of the leaning environment of which the teacher/instructor may be a part (Steffens, 2005). Self-regulated learning is investigated in relationship to teachers’ professionalism from three theoretical perspectives. These are: •

how the social development of communities of practices as self-regulating entities has developed;

•

how the relationship between practicebased research and the self-regulation of the teaching profession operates;

•

how a deeper understanding of the social semiotics of virtual learning environments might contribute to professional selfregulated learning .

The theories are exemplified through descriptions of MirandaNet Fellowship practice. MirandaNet is a professional organization of teachers, teacher educators, researchers, policy makers and company partners established in 1992. The core aim is to provide innovative Information and Communications Technology (ICT) programmes for teachers that focus on empowering the professional to manage change in teaching and learning. The article concludes with some observations on the contradictions between self-regulated learning and the mono-modal forms of professional accreditation generally available to teachers in England. HOW THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF COMUNITIES OF PRACTICE (COP) AS SELF-REGULATING PROFESSIONAL ENTITIES HAS DEVELOPD The background to CoP theory and practice The idea that learning can be described in terms of participation was first put forward by Lave and Wenger who coined the phrase, ‘community of practice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991). They argue that learning is a process of increasingly central participation in communities of practice, a movement from the ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ of a newcomer to the full participation of ‘old timers’. Wenger, who had been observing business practices in the first instance, stresses how the mutual constitution of agent, activity and world, means that learning becomes a process of the construction of identities, adding that identity formation is negotiated in the course of doing the job and interacting with others (Wenger, 1998). While this theory does not illuminate every kind of learning (Greeno, Collins et al., 1996) it does seem to fit well the experience of teachers engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) through participation in online communities of practice. The ‘community of practice’ notion does not stem

from education. It emerged from the late nineteenth century pursuit of utopian social communities (Morris, 1899; Livingstone and Parry, 2005). Education commentators such as Sachs, Hargreaves, Goodson, Whitty, Lave and Wenger see the building of an authoritative and democratic community as an important step in reinstating the professional teachers’ authentic voice after the legacy of a topdown approach, which began in the 1980s (Hargreaves and Goodson, 1996; Wenger, 1998; Lave and Wenger, 1999; Hopkins, 2002; Whitty, 2002; Sachs, 2003). Progressive governments have been persuaded for more than a decade that, at its best, online learning, communication and publication can be an effective spur towards self-regulated learning and democratic participation for teaching professionals. The Chileans began this process of creating a CoP for their teachers online in 1994 (Preston, 1995). English education policy makers started the National Grid for Learning (NGFL) around the same time, and predicted the rise of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) in education (Stevenson, 1996). On the other hand the same policy makers did not predict that the lack of internalized online skills in the profession might negate the value of the money spent both on both national services. For example, the use of a commercial VLE was recommended for the National ICT Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme from 1999-2003. However, this proved unstable for such large numbers. Even when the recommended VLE was working, there were insufficient advisers and teacher educators with e-facilitation skills in the country to scaffold effective learning (Preston, 2004). This short fall is now being addressed by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) and by the General Teaching Council (GTC) who are using MirandaNet Fellows as trainers and efacilitators. MIRANDANET PRACTICE

AS

A

COMMUNITY

OF

The background to CoPs This paper relates the experience of MirandaNet Fellows who founded a community of practice in 1992 based upon Lave and Wenger’s discoveries about business communities which were developed in parallel (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Lave and Wenger began observing this phenomenon in

101

education in 1998 (Wenger, 1998). By 2002 the definition of CoPs from Wenger et al. which emphasizes the human interaction in CoP’s comes close to MirandaNet Practice (Wenger, McDermott et al., 2002): "A community of practice is not just a web site, a database, or a collection of best practices. It is a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment. Having others who share your overall view of the domain and yet bring their individual perspectives on any given problem creates a social learning system that goes beyond the sum of its parts" (p. 34). The MirandaNet Fellowship was established some ten years before the working parts of communities of practice in education became a topic for debate. In early 2005 MirandaNet was included in Stuckey’s study of ten internet-mediated communities of practice. Stuckey points out that, in her study at least, communities of practice in education are characterised by the need for the community to enhance the professional status of its members Taking an overview Stuckey identified certain common features of successful Internet-based CoPs. These features were to

power of the Braided Learning concept developed within the MirandaNet Fellowship (Preston, 2002a). The concept has emerged from the communal constructivist school which attempts to move beyond social constructivism and capture specific elements of the additional value that ICT applications bring to the learning and teaching environment. (Holmes, Tangney et al., 2001; Leask, Ramos et al., 2001; Aspden and Pountney, 2002). The constant change of features which characterizes vibrant online communities like MirandaNet indicates how difficult it is for academics with a long publishing period to keep up with the flow of a lively, multi-headed and dispersed community (Preston, Wegerif et al., 2005). Stuckey has now joined the Fellowship and is influencing the growth of theory and practice from the inside. This opportunity for co-construction is another feature of an informal community which facilitates sharing.

Invite different levels of participation Develop an active and passionate core Celebrate rituals of community life Provide news and events that are constantly changing Develop both public and private spaces Harness the power of the personal connection Actively generate content (Stukey, 2005).

Academics should be careful of assuming that a general CoP label will cover all the practices to be seen within CoPs like MirandaNet. Two emergent trends in other kinds of communities can be cited here. In the first case Nardi and Engestrom have observed home workers who are able to activate dormant nodes of specialists who they need for a particular project by email even though this is not a continuous relationship (Nardi and Engestrom, 1999). This use of e-networking for consultancy, which is not quite the same as being a continuous member of a community of practice, can already be observed in MirandaNet activities which do not enjoy a regular funding stream. Some expert groups may have breaks in their international links because of funding gaps. However, as soon as more funding is achieved they are quickly able to regroup often including new colleagues as well.

It is not surprising that MirandaNet presents all the Stuckey characteristics as she found that, from a study of six groups, the MirandaNet community best exemplified a community of practice, which functioned well over a long period. Each of these characteristics was revisited by MirandaNet Fellows when the study was published to see how the community had developed. By this time members were already moving onto the importance of partnership with external bodies, empowerment of professionals and the extension of publication opportunities. The theory that was also occupying the community by the summer of 2005 was the

Gee’s observations which relate to young games players are also relevant. He talks of ‘online affinity spaces’ that offer an alternative model to a CoP. These online groups tend to be more transient and allow people from different ages, classes, sexes and ethical backgrounds to learn collaboratively in a way that they might not be able to in a face-to-face community (Gee, 2005). The MirandaNet Fellowship is already experimenting with Gee’s model of self-regulation by building the World Ecitizens website (www.worldecitizens.net). This is a web-space where young global citizens from diverse backgrounds are encouraged to share ideas in a

-

102

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) although they may never met. This might provide a valuable perspective from which to question the appropriateness of the CoP model amongst students who have different lifestyles from their teachers and a different relationship with technology. The social aspects of CoPs What is common in these different approaches to learning in groups is the evidence for a strong, social strand in the teaching and learning process. This has been worked on since Vygotsky’s time although applying this information to internet working brings a new freshness to the notion. These principles for social engagement online are outlined in an important conversational framework (Laurillard, 2002). The underlying Laurillard design imperatives used in MirandaNet course designs are that : learning is experiential – one aspect of learning is the application and trial of new concepts, or new perspectives on previous ideas, in practice. learning the skills of e-facilitation is reflexive – learning how to manage an online group arises from active experience in online groups and reflection on the issues and processes involved. learning is cyclical - understandings develop over time. The development is at least partly a result of engagement in personal reflection and with the reflections of others; engagement with the feedback loop afforded by mentor and peer critique; and the application of ideas in practice theory and practice are mutually informing informed professional practice relies on the integration of theory and practice, and the ability to reflect critically on both. learning is mediated through dialogue - deeplevel learning is associated with an insight into the intentions of the speaker/writer and the ways in which language and ideas are structured and organised to convey meaning (Marton and Saljo). Further, Laurillard’s framework models how the action of articulating a representation of a concept can lead to self-evaluation of one’s own understanding, in addition to the opportunities afforded for feedback, questioning and evaluation from others.

There are few VLEs designed for teachers that promote this kind of social learning although more work in appropriate software use has been considered for pupils (Wegerif, 2004). Scardamalia and Bereiter have actually developed software to promote dialogical learning between pupils: their Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), the Knowledge Forum. In this model learners build a virtual knowledge base which reflects the interests of the learners and grows in complexity as more is stored and shared (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1996). The explicit aim is to widen the pupils’ empirical understanding of the value of this kind of learning against the information transmission paradigms that still predominate in schools because of the examination system. In contrast, in higher education the use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) has been largely information transmission driven refelecting the university teaching paradigm. This can be because the affordances of the VLE design do not encourage ownership by the learners of online debate and discussion. The other reason why learning in VLEs remains traditional is because most tutors are not experienced in the skills they require online to encourage participation in this process, although they may be expert in stimulating classroom discussion. Teaching in this vital skill of efacilitation , which is akin to like hosting a party when the guests are invisible, is not yet offered in teacher education as a general rule. A pilot CoP in e-facilitation In response to the perceived need, MirandaNet started a pilot in e-faciliation for Fellows in 2002 which was funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the General Teaching Council (GTC), called 'Teachers as Researchers'. Fellows designed a pilot VLE in the form of an e-journal for this course which encouraged the same social learning and community building which was happening face to face. Two two-day residential workshops contributed to the cohesion of the group. In the independent evaluation of the Diploma module, teachers found that the process of building an online community of practice was an important scaffold for their learning (Earle, 2004). This finding triangulated with earlier research, which indicated that the online activity in professional communities was the main motivation for continuing professional development (Preston, Cox et al., 2000).

103

Whereas Scardamalia and Bereiter Knowledge Forum software focuses on children in school as self-regulated, social learners, the MirandaNet model focuses on the use of an Internet-based community of practice for teachers which builds a dynamic knowledge base owned by the profession. An important aspect of the online learning in MirandaNet which brings the strategy close to the Laurillard framework has been this development of e-facilitation skills which has enriched the learning dialogue. Acquiring e-facilitation skills appears to be helping to build a collaborative MirandaNet voice in the forums and e-journals which is self-regulated. Collaborative, constructive and co-constructive learning is at the core of the process. This building of shared knowledge in autonomous communities of practice can provide a learning environment where new pedagogical techniques can be tested, risks can be taken and failure can be a source of learning between colleagues who trust each other. HOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH AND SELFREGULATION OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION OPERATES The background to practice-based research E-facilitation is only one of the new role teachers need to assume if some of their teaching is online. Teachers can feel threatened when they are asked to promote self-regulatory learning processes like this in their classrooms when they have never learnt in this way themselves. They may also be resistant because they are unsure of the value of this kind of learning when traditional examinations are still the testing mechanism. The use of practice-based research in teacher education helps to overcome these professional doubts by putting teachers in selfregulated learning situations. The assumption is that personal experience helps them to make judgements about how and when these strategies can improve students’ learning. This is why practice-based research underpins the collaborative, constructive and co-constructive learning processes in MirandaNet that are owned by practitioners. Practice-based research is an extension of the well-known term, ‘action research’. This globally recognized term describes the process which encourages teachers to conduct a small-scale

104

enquiry in their own classrooms with their own students. This process is intended to develop a greater sense of the ownership of learning, which is part of professionalism. One important principle of action research is that teachers as researchers should control the process of change and development by fact-finding, planning, implementing a course of action, evaluating that action, reassessment and modification. The iterative cycle encourages learners to take risks, experiment and adapt because they are not constrained by the need to be right first time (Elliott, 1991; Somekh and Davis, 1998; Hopkins, 2001). This iterative cycle is similar to the self-regulatory approach to learning described in Telepeers findings: planning a learning project, monitoring its execution and evaluating its outcome. This learning cycle is now an important topic in educational and psychological research. One reason for this is that the extent to which learners are capable of regulating their own learning has a marked effect on the success of the outcome (Telepeers, 2005). Action research has an impressive history which started in the 1980s. In The Reflective Practitioner Schon (1983) creates the action research process to underpin how professionals think in action. He saw this as a means of empowering teachers professionally, facilitating their participation in professionalism, encouraging them to share their stories and to rethink what they know. Since then other researchers have investigated story telling as a means of developing professional identity (Thomas, 1995; James, 1996; Preston, 1998; Preston, Mannova et al., 2000, Preston, 2002b). But Barnett doubted whether the process of telling stories was enough to ensure deep professional learning. He contended that uncritical story telling encourages a local focus which might result in the neglect of the theory and practice of others. Teachers must further engage with professional issues and practice their critical skills on comparative exercises (Barnett, 1997). Brown and Dowling make the same case for teachers being given the space to pursue an apprenticeship in research methods, rather than concentrating entirely on the process in their own classroom or institution (Brown and Dowling, 1998). Lawes also deplores the decrease of the teaching of theory in teacher education and contends that, as a result of reflective practice approaches practice and theory have

become confused. In her view ‘theory’ often means nothing more than ‘talking about practice’ (Lawes, 2003, p.22).

policy issues will be an important gain.

As a result of this kind of objection to action research this term is often replaced by ‘practicebased’ or ‘evidence-based research’ in England. Lamb, on the other hand, uses the term, ‘practitioner research’. She claims that practitioner research is a vital ingredient of Continuing Professional Development which provides opportunities for active learning. In addition, in this method teachers are offered the space and capacity to build critically on theoretical knowledge in order to think the unthinkable. The critical phrase here is ‘to build critically on theoretical knowledge’ (Lamb and Simpson, 2003, p.62). Saunders sees the knowledge base made up of evidence-based case studies authored by teachers not as a body of finite knowledge to be prescribed and imposed on teachers, but rather as a living process built around and tested on practical experience in classrooms, developed from and adapted to particular teaching and learning settings (Saunders, 2002).

On the subject of a self-regulated profession, Sachs, the Australian commentator on teacher professionalism, is sanguine about the emergence of the democratic professional towards the end of the twentieth century. What she hopes will grow from this is the development of the activist professional who will be empowered to influence policy making in education rather than merely enacting commands which have been passed down the line by politicians (Sachs, 2003). In pursuit of the activist professional ideal, the e-facilitation pilot course also offered a platform where the learners could influence policy making.

This means of sharing knowledge seems to be attractive to teachers as one thousand five hundred from all over the world access the MirandaNet website to download materials every day. These materials are constantly being renewed by the Fellows who are encouraged to engage with the literature and to publish their studies for the rest of their learning community All MirandaNet scholars go through an interactive cycle of learning. When they are ready to publish for their peers they are promoted to become lead-learners and e-mentors. This ownership of outcomes, therefore, facilitates the opportunity for Fellows to gain a ‘strong and principled voice’ and learn how to use it effectively (Freidson, 1994). Supported by this kind of evidence, the teachers’ voice is gaining credence with academic readers. Fellows' studies which were contributed to the MirandaNet e-journal have now been rewritten in a more academic mode for the first edition of the more formal e-journal, Reflecting Education, published by the Institute of Education, University of London. The target readership is teachers, taking professional studies, who have evidence of practice to share (Pachler, 2005). By adopting this constructive form of learning, teachers in England may become a selfregulated profession in the future. Having a voice in

The activist professional

MirandaNet presented an opportunity for course participants to influence policy at the end of the Teachers as researchers CPD Programme in 2004. A platform was offered in the final workshop to a key government policy maker, the Head of the Schools Division in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). He was inviting public consultation at that time on the national e-learning strategy (DfES, 2003) . The teacher professionals on the pilot worked in groups to summarise the evidence for presentation in conection with this consultation exercise. This was a different mode of professional communication, which invited the students to present the contents of their essays in different modes. This project evidence and discussions with representatives from academic and government organisations, concerned with policymaking in education indicated that the learning process had not just been ‘an academic exercise’ but an opportunity to influence policy. This last element of the course was not accredited, as the mechanisms do not yet exist for the accreditation of collaborative oral submissions for assessment. This fact is explored in more detail in the discussion on accreditation. HOW A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIAL SEMIOTIC THEORIES CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SELF-REGULATED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING The background to social semiotics As the Fellows become more experienced in

105

multimodal communication their professional voice no longer depends exclusively on the written word. They now use a portfolio of complex tools which present knowledge in graphics, music, sound, moving image and E-forums that record asynchronous conversations. Web casting is being developed and a new MirandaNet website is currently being designed to encourage a wider range of expression and communication. A new and complex digital tool with great power is the virtual learning environment (VLE). Interactive VLE features are embedded in the e-journals for teachers’ publication and in the World E-citizens website for student exchange. This widening range of multimodal tools takes cognisance of the affordances of the screen rather than the page.

thought are the affordances of each mode and the learners’ capacity to chose judiciously.

These multimedia developments in the MirandaNet resources not only promote self-regulated learning, but are also designed to expose teachers to the impact of new media affordances on contemporary communication. MirandaNet Fellows believe that an understanding of the power of computers cannot be achieved simply by a mastery of technical skills and know-how. Therefore, an important aspect of ICT CPD is a critical grasp of the emerging science of social semiotics as well.

MirandaNet learning activities are developed to stimulate the students’ explicit understanding of these new media issues not only through reading the literature, but through the critical use of multimodal tools. This is quite a different slant from the package skills training approach to ICT training that too often dominates training in ICT for teachers. The active learning that is promoted in practitioner research means that teachers produce designs that customise and adapt the multimodal products available as well as create new ones.

Sassure offered the first definition of social semiotics as ‘the life of signs in society’ (Sassure, 1974). Since 1988 Kress with a range of multidisciplinary partners has been employing the tenets of this emergent science to explore more closely the tools teachers and learners use to represent meaning in the education process (Hodge and Kress, 1988; Kress, 1996; Kress et al., 2001; Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress, 2003; Kress, 2004; Kress, 2005). MirandaNet Fellows employ the precepts of this growing body of theory in practitioner projects and workshops because they are interested in the changing balance in global communication between words and pictures. Jewitt and Kress challenge traditional assessment systems by asserting that language is only a partial element of communication (Jewitt and Kress, 2003). In fact, in their view, modes like gesture, image, posture and speech are all partial in the assembly of meaning in a learning event. This attitude towards the value of signs is a significant challenge to the assumptions that the modes of reading and writing are superior to other modes in the making of meaning. What matters in this emergent school of

106

Social semioticians are looking beyond mono-modal literacy in reading and writing to celebrate the multimodal tools that teacher bring to pedagogy. Performance aspects of the teacher’s craft include gesture and modulation and tone of voice (Jewitt, 2003). Emotional literacy is also relevant in creating contexts for effective learning (Goleman, 1996). The challenge to conventional academics is that this emergent area of research draws on a wide range of disciplines rather than drilling deeply into only one discipline. Social semioticians also tend to ignore the hierarchy of values that are traditionally accorded to these disciplines.

Face-to-face and online activities are delivered and conducted in a variety of communication modes in order to extend this aspect of the participants’ multimodal literacy. In the Teachers as Researchers CPD Programme participants reported on each of the stages of their practice based project in an interactive MirandaNet e-journal, where they received feedback and critical review both from their peers and course tutors. This is a multimodal publishing environment which includes graphics and multi-layering. It is superior to email for this kind of learning as the learning processes and the information routes can be seen as a coherent entity with clear navigation pathways signed by the parts of a rose. (see figure 1) The graphical metaphor is intended to scaffold an understanding of the different elements which make up a full study and how they may relate to each other. The parts of the rose are deconstructed: thorns and branches signify the polarity of forum discussion; the head of the rose represents the summary or abstract; the roots depict the underlying evidence in the form of the case study. The

students’ statement about their own learning is depicted by the reassembling of the full rose – a reference to the Gestalt theory of holistic learning developed in the 1930s. From this perspective the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Figure 1: The MirandaNet rose When this image was first introduced, practitioners following the MirandaNet e-facilitation course found the rose metaphor helpful in relating the purpose of and interrelation of different academic activities (Earle, 2004). The subliminal impact of the rose, which was a subject for discussion in the workshops, introduced the notion of situated cognition in instructional design which is so familiar to young learners (Collins, Brown et al., 1989). Situated cognition which was also a focus of Lave and Wenger’s work emphasises studies of human behaviour that have 'ecological validity': that is, which take place in real situations. This is particularly relevant to the learning of young people outside the classroom (Somekh et al., 2002; Sutherland, 2004). The use of a VLE helps to make more visible although only in text how ideas are woven together overtime by a group of learners. The practice based research studies also record in details the reality of school change in terms of student behaviours, barriers to change, real-world complications such national agendas, lack of time, timetabling constraints and private agendas which necessarily change the nature of the classroom activity. Situated cognition attempts to integrate these complexities into its analytic framework. The subliminal effect of signs is just one aspect of this wider picture of situated learning. Discussed from this theoretical perspective, the sign of the rose became used as an illustration of the

complexity of the learners response to a selfregulated learning in a VLE. In particular, the rose metaphor, which provided the navigational guidance for the VLE, raised some of these visual design issues associated with screens with the practitioners. The rose was a deconstruction of the MirandaNet logo which is based on the style of the Scottish artist, Rennie Mackintosh. This was recognized by the teachers as a rare reference to the past on the web, and in ICT CPD. Some participants in the workshop debate were also aware that this rose also refers to the notions of the value of craftsmanship, of a socialist dream of human equality and the building of a utopian paradise on earth which are inherent in the Arts and Crafts movement at the turn of the twentieth century. The notion is that ICTs can be used to make a better world, just as in the last century arts and crafts were seen as having this potential. Because the substitution of design content in this VLE is trivial, the participating teachers were invited to make the e-journal community their own by providing a graphical metaphor which had some resonance for the group. However, they preferred to stay with the given image because as a learning community they decided that this sign was appropriate for the group’s philosophy (Earle, 2004). Half the group became MirandaNet Fellows after the course and continued further studies about the use of ICT. Impact on classroom practice is anticipated by MirandaNet through making semiosis explicit in the learning experience of teachers. In turn it may be that the motivation of young learners might be improved by attending to a more rounded view of situated learning than conventional mono-literal environments offer. Accreditation in the multimodal domain To summarise the argument so far: the MirandaNet practice-based process of knowledge building promotes teachers’ ownership of their learning as well as community collaboration. Underlying this process is the promotion of a deeper understanding of the semiotic affordances of ICT through a VLE as well as face-to-face. What is interesting is that this comparatively innovative approach to ICT CPD appears to be producing higher attainment for teachers in the traditional products of professional studies, the four thousand word essay. The teachers who were invited

107

to submit their evidence-based case studies to the ejournal, Reflecting Education, were amongst the eleven teachers who were awarded A grades on the MirandaNet pilot e-facilitation course Teachers as Researchers which was held at the Institute of Education, University of London. The external evaluator and the independent assessor commented on the high number of As. The norm would have been about two As in a cohort of 20. These marks can partly be explained by the selection process which resulted from a national competition and by the bursaries provided from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to pay for study expenses like supply cover, books, travel and residential workshops. However, the independent evaluator said that it was unlikely that these factors alone guaranteed the creativity and the scholarship that was displayed in the final essays. The supported and costed use of practice-based research and the community building was a major factor in the success. The teachers reported in the independent evaluation that the fact that the VLE design mirrored the design of the induction course and the e-facilitation module was an important scaffold in understanding the relationship between the subtasks. They also valued the writing course online and the ensuing discussion between participants, which has continued in support of the other modules that some participants have undertaken. Membership of a learning community during the course was another factor which seemed to be important (Earle, 2004). These findings triangulate with an earlier study about what motivates teachers to use Information and Communications Technology in classrooms (Preston et al., 2000). In this context, other research findings suggest that innovation and change come more from teachers’ informed professional practice around teaching and learning than from target setting and ‘performativity’ (OECD, 2001; Hudson, 2002; Saunders, 2002). The MirandaNet tutors’ questions The questions that the tutors for the Teachers as Researchers course asked in their evaluation were harder to answer. The Diploma accreditation required a four thousand word written essay in a conventional format as the sole mono-literate means of testing the achievements of the participants. The tutors did not think that this essay had showcased all

108

the learning gains on this e-facilitation course. For example, some students designed additions to the MirandaNet environment that were developed by the web editor. Other students customised other commercially distributed VLEs themselves or designed their own. These design skills required knowledge that was superior to the tutors’ knowledge in these specifics. E-facilitators also had to navigate a multi-layered environment with vastly different affordances from the medium of writing or talking. No accreditation criteria were linked to this kind of effort when the course was prepared. Should the tutors have linked with a computer science department? What kind of multi-disciplinarian higher education department would be required to prophesy what might be achieved? Other questions emerged over the accreditation of the e-facilitation induction course. The induction into the skills of e-facilitation considered was too vocational and competence-based to be accredited at post graduate level. As this was a very new area a BBC forum e-facilitator was asked to provide the criteria and support the tutors in marking the performance of the e-facilitators which could be judging in on-line dynamic activity. The forums which were being e-facilitated by the course members were open to the teaching profession. Some debates were poorly attended. Some of the teachers who joined the debates were openly hostile and destructive because they did not like the establishment of the GTC. Tutors had to make allowances for these negative factors in the process of making judgements about the e-facilitators performance. In hindsight the tutor team decided that the quality of the interaction moved far beyond mere competence in handling the mechanics of this operation. The students running forums devised strategies in teams to draw the best from the forum members. In essence the e-facilitators, at their best, were providing the links and scaffolding for a collaborative text developed in digital space and asynchronous time. At the same time they were dealing with poor online etiquette and sometimes generating activity which did not happen without them, Peers were weaving together ideas, intellect to intellect, without the distractions of body language, appearance, gender, tone of voice, gesture or any of the other mediations that hang in the air of face-toface talk. These capacities were not rewarded in the Diploma.

In the course evaluation discussion, tutors questioned whether this human empathy, intellectual energy and capacity to scaffold a rich learning dialogue should have been marked below the level of a Diploma module as it was. Should these tasks have been assessed as a post-doctoral activity instead? Was enough known about multimodal literacy and situated learning, the tutors asked, to make the marking secure? At the core of this tutorial discussion was the realisation that the students were achieving mastery of more multimodal skills and understanding than the tutors had envisaged when the course was planned. The effect of the community of practice also meant that new skills, notions and ideas were being fashioned, used and published in the forums as the course progressed which were not yet in the e-facilitation canon. How could these be rewarded? The notion of ‘competence’ seemed to be crossing a wider range of disciplines than had been envisaged. The preface of the Kress and Jewitt edited book on Multimodal Literacy is illuminating on the assessment of ‘competence’ in the use of multimodal tools. They comment that in an era of profound and rapid change, neither the goal of competence nor the (imagined) reality behind that goal is any longer serviceable and sustainable. In the face of a product from the learner they suggest instead a change in the assessment question from, “How does what is here match what a teacher expected and wanted to be there?” to “How does what is here give a teacher insight into the interests of the maker of what is here?” They suggest that a tutor or a teacher might also take an interest in the different ways in which a learner has chosen to represent concepts presented by the teacher and enjoy the diversity of interpretation rather than pronouncing on what is right or wrong. In such a conception of the assessment of learning, ‘error’ has a different place in the process of assessment (Jewitt and Kress, 2003). Tutors on the Teachers as Researchers course decided that next time they would lower the weighting given to the literature search and raise the assessment weighting for the personal learning statement as a result of their study of Jewitt and Kress’s comments on the value of critique. These social semioticians question the role of ‘critique’ in learning because critique necessarily acts on what has already happened in past performance, and on the effect of the (past) agenda of others. Instead

Kress and Jewitt promote the notion of ‘Design’, which refers to how people make use of resources that are available at a given moment in a specific communication environment to realise their interests as makers of a message or text. Kress and Jewitt affirm that if the aim of education should be to promote productive action in a period of rapid change, and in one’s own interests, then Design must replace competence and critique as the essential goal of educational practice, of theories of learning, and of theories of representation much more generally (Jewitt and Kress, 2003). The tutors would also wish to give more consideration to the notion of Design and develop marking criteria that were more multi-disciplinary. This would give greater value to the situated learning which took place in the e-facilitation activity. This activity approximates to the Design recommendations that Jewitt and Kress make. Concentration on the practice-based research process rather than the case study products was one way in which tutors had already foreseen some of these challenges and avoided prescribing what kind of e-learning case study was to be undertaken. However it was the case study product not the process that attracted Diploma marks. It was from this rich mix of approaches that both the students and the tutors were able to learn more about e-facilitation than had been envisaged. This content-free practice-based approach would seem to be an important means of accrediting courses that cover multimodal affordances in the future. Since it can take up to five years to have a pilot course formally accredited in the higher education sector, it is hard to see how multimodal and multimedia curriculum content and literature could be effectively specified over this time scale. For the future A new discussion for tutors in the multi-modal field in the future might be whether teachers who make the grade in representation and communication on a professional activists course are at pre- or postdoctoral level. Are teachers and children as researchers in multimodality engaging in doctoral work at a much earlier level than we might have thought in the past? Social semioticists would contend that representations and communications are always ‘interested’ rather than ‘objective’. In fact, Jewitt and Kress argue that the elevated

109

position of objectivity is, in fact, unattainable. Therefore, there can be no bias, as no norm exists. Around and beyond this thought lies the need for a radical rethinking of learning as a multimodal process and a re-analysis of the accreditation principle as it stands in relation to teachers as activist professionals. The use of VLEs might be one multimodal pressure which helps to transform the way in which teachers are educated and promote further the idea of self-regulated learning for teachers. Thanks to Rupert Wegerif, Southampton University and Russell Francis, Oxford University Department of Educational Studies, who commented on early drafts. REFERENCES Aspden, L. and Pountney, L. (2002). Community and constructivism: implicit pedagogical models in virtual learning. In Proceedings of World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2002 Norfolk, VA/ACCE. Barnett, R. (1997). Critical Professionalism. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: Open University Press, Chapter 10, 132-144. Brown, A. and Dowling, A. (1998). Doing Research/Reading Research, A Mode of Interrogation for Education. London: Falmer Press. Collins, A., Brown, J.S. et al. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship : teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathmatics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays In Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum., 453-491. Department for Education and Skills (2003). Towards a Unified e-learning strategy: consultation document. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/elearningstrategy/strategy.stm Earle, A. (2004). An evaluation of an Advanced Diploma Module, 'Reflecting on professional practices: an ejournal approach' for the Institute of Education, University of London. London, Collaboranda. Earle, A. (2004). Reflecting on Professional E-learning Practices: an e-journal approach. Collaboranda. Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophecy and Policy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gee, J. P. (2005 ). Why Video Games are Good for your Soul. Australia, Common Ground. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. et al. (1996). Cognition and Learning. In D. Berliner and R. Calfee (eds.). Handbook of educational psychology. New York: MacMillan, 15-46.

110

Hargreaves, A. and Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers' professional lives: aspirations and activities. In I. Goodson and A. Hargreaves (Eds.). Teachers' Professional Lives. London: Falmer Press, 1-27. Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. Padstow, Cornwall: Polity Press. Holmes, B., Tangney, B. et al. (2001). Communal Constructivism: Students' constructing learning for as well as with others. 12th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 2001), Charlottesville, VA, USA, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Hopkins, D. (2001). A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hopkins, D. (2002). Keynote. Teachers on Teaching and Learning, GTC/IOE Joint Conference, London. Hudson, B. (2002). Holding complexity and searching for meaning: teaching as reflective practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34 (1), 43-57. James, P. (1996). The transforming power of story-telling among peers: an exploration from action research. Educational Action Research, 4 (2), 197-220. Jewitt, C. (2003). A multimodal framework for computer mediated learning: the reshaping of curriculum knowledge and learning. Culture, Language and Communication. London, Institute of Education, University of London. Jewitt, C. and Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2004). Learning, a semiotic view in the context of digital technologies. In N. Davis and A. Brown (eds.). Digital Technology. Communities and Education. London and New York: Routledge Falmer. Kress, G. (2005). A fond farewell to language as we know (knew) it: some navigation marks for contemporary communication. CAL'05 Virtual Learning? University of Bristol, UK. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. and Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold: Hodder Headline Group. Lamb, T. and Simpson, M. (2003). Escaping from the treadmill: practitioner research and professional autonomy. Language Learning Journal, 28, 55-63. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching : a framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge Palmer. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in Doing: Social, cognitive and computational. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999). Learning and Pedagogy in Communities of Practice in Learners and Pedagogy. Open University. Lawes, S. (2003). What, when, how, why? Theory and foreign language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 28, 22-28. Leask, M., Ramos, J. et al. (2001). Communal Constructivist Theory: ICT Pedagogy & Internationalisation of the Curriculum. Livingstone, L. and Parry, L. (2005). International Arts and Crafts. London: V&A Publications. Morris, W. (1899). Arts and Crafts. Essays. London. Nardi, B. and Engestrom, Y. (1999). A Web on the Wind: The Structure of Invisible Work, http://www.best.com/~nardi/InvisibleW.htm. OECD (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Pachler, N. (2005). Reflecting Education Institute of Education. London: University of London. Preston, C. (1995). Best Defence. The Times Higher Education Supplement: xii. Preston, C. (1998). Is Teaching Less of a Job? Let's Make it a Profession Again. The Independent. London. Preston, C. (2002a). Braided Learning: teachers learning with and for each other. National Interactive Media Association: Learning Together. Tokyo, Japan: NIME. Preston, C. (2002b). Identity in the age of the Internet: Web based Community Publications. IFIP Conference, Manchester. Preston, C. (2004). Learning to use ICT in Classrooms: teachers' and trainers' perspectives : an evaluation of the English NOF ICT teacher training programme 1999-2003. London: MirandaNet and the Teacher Training Agency www.mirandanet.ac.uk/nof. Preston, C., Cox, M. et al. (2000). Teachers as Innovators: an Evaluation of the Motivation of Teachers to use ICT. London: MirandaNet. Preston, C., Mannova, B. et al. (2000). Collaboration through Technology Now and in the Future: Linking New Europe with the World. Culture and Technology in the New Europe: Civic Discourse in Transition in Post-Socialist Nations. D. L. Lengel. USA, Ablex Publishing Corporation. Preston, C., Wegerif, R. et al. (2005). MirandaNet: An Ecommunity of Practice. 8th IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education. Stellenbosch, South Africa: IFIT. Sachs, J. (2003). The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sassure, F. (1974). Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana. Saunders, L. (2002). Evidence-led professional creativity. GTC/IOE Joint Conference, Teachers on Teaching and Learning, London. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1996). Schools as knowledge building organisations. In D. Keating and C. Hartman (eds.). Today's Children, Tomorrow's Society: The Developmental Health and Wealth of

Nations. New York: Guildford. Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Somekh, B., Mavers, D. and Restorick, M. (2002). Impact2. Coventry: DFES. Somekh, B. and Davis, N. (1998). Using Information Technology Effectively in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Steffens, K. (2005). Technology Enhanced Narrative Learning Environments: a pedagogical perspective. Kaleidoscope : Guide for the implementation of Narrative Learning Environments Version 1.0 ( Sept 22). Stevenson, D. (1996). Information and Communications Technology in UK Schools, Independent Inquiry Pearson Group. Stuckey, B. (2005). Growing an on-line community of practice: Community development to support inservice teachers in their adoption of innovation. Doctoral Thesis (in Press). Research Centre for Interactive Learning Environments, University of Wollongong, Australia. Sutherland, R., et al. (2004). Designs for learning: ICT and knowledge in the classroom. Computers & Education 43 (1-2), 5-16. Telepeers consortium. (2005). Self regulated learning in technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Draft for discussion, EDU-ELEARN - European Commission. Thomas, D. (1995). Teachers' Stories. Buckingham: Open University Press. Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations. Computer & Education, 43 (1-2), 179-191. Wenger, E, McDermott, R. et al. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, R. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitty, G. (2002). Re-forming Teacher Professionalism for New Times. Making Sense of Education Policy. London: Paul Chapman, 64-78.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Christina Preston is the Founder and Chair of the International MirandaNet Fellowship, which spans national, social, cultural, commercial and political divides. This 'community of practice' was established in 1992 in response to a need expressed amongst teachers for a supportive community of peers who would mentor each other in the investigation of the potential of new media in teaching and learning. Education researchers, teachers, teachers’ educators, policy makers and

111

company partners are equal members of this professional organisation which aims to support other builders of web based communities as well as involve teachers as researchers in shared reflection on practice. Recent projects have focused on: evaluating the UK national ICT training programme for teachers and the European Computer Driving licence; innovative models for ICT Continuing Professional Development; investigating the roles of supply teachers, and the building of international web-based communities of practice. Another

112

MirandaNet focus has been the use of Interactive Whiteboards in constructive or transformational learning and the sharing of practice-based research case studies between the UK, South Africa, Mexico and China. Research is based at the MirandaNet International Research Centre at Southampton University and continuing professional development programmes are hosted by the MirandaNet Academy at Bath Spa University. (www.mirandanet.ac.uk)

ONLINE LEARNING GROUPS AS SELF-REGULATED ENTITIES Stephen Frank Department of Media Education and Further Education, University of Leipzig Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1, 04105 Leipzig, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Anke Dommaschk Department of Media Education and Further Education, University of Leipzig Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1, 04105 Leipzig, Germany E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Action regulation theory, constructivist learning theory, educational model, self-regulated learning, social learning. ABSTRACT The concept of ‘self-regulated learning’ (SRL) usually refers to individual learners. In this paper the idea of SRL is extended to the perspective of learning groups. The discussion is based upon the experience of the ‘Leipziger Online-Seminar’ – a students’ online project of the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig. The Department of Media Education and Further Education has been interested in online learning groups as self-regulated entities in tele-learning arrangements since 1999. For this purpose, ILIAS has been used since 2002. In the ‘Leipziger Online-Seminar’, student groups are trained as online tutors within a period of three terms. During that period, they take on more responsibilities and act with more independence. In the first term, the students take part in an online course. Next, they plan and design in a tutor group their own online course, which is realized in the third term. In this period the tutor group is seen as an SRL entity. Although decisions in the process of planning, executing and monitoring as well as evaluating are

made by the group, the tutors have to realize them individually. In order to keep the group capable of acting, each member of the tutor group has to have a high social competence. On the one hand, different opinions must be discussed, compromises as well as solutions have to be found, and on the other hand, all decisions made have to be accepted and realized by the individual. The tutor group is coached by university lecturers, who stimulate and guide the reflection on the group processes and their outcomes. An essential tool is ILIAS, which supports the communication between the members of the group as well as the process of finding solutions and tracing results. The online course is also planned, designed and realized on the ILIAS platform. This article demonstrates that processes in online learning groups can be described with an SRL process model, and concentrates, further, on the social component of self-regulated learning. INTRODUCTION Learning almost always happens in social contexts. Almost all learning processes are imparted socially – be it by a teacher or by cultural artefacts. Additionally, new knowledge is often acquired in group situations. The focus here is not the learning process of the individual, but the (re-)construction and assessment of it within the group process. This is especially true for Social Sciences and Humanities, where interpersonal discourse forms of learning are a

113

long and elaborate tradition. Nevertheless, most theories that deal with learning focus on the individual. Within these theories, we can distinguish between ones that examine the course of a learning episode as action, and ones that try to explain the build up of knowledge and skills in the individual. The theory of self-regulated learning belongs to the first group. The Constructivist Learning Theory belongs to the second. The Action Regulation Theory brings together both perspectives on the cognitive level: learning as a process and the learning itself. But in order to be able to describe learning in a comprehensive way, in addition to the cognitive aspects, emotional, motivational and social aspects also have to be taken into account. In this way, we can describe learning within social contexts, as in the “Leipzig Online Seminar” of the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig.

In order to describe self-regulated learning, we can use component models as well as process models. The notion of self-regulated learning, in the way in which it is the basis for the Telepeers project (Telepeers consortium, 2005), tries to combine these two aspects. Following Zimmermann (2000), the learning process – the ideal course of a learning episode – is divided into three stages: (1) the planning of the learning action, (2) executing and monitoring the learning activity, and (3) the evaluation of the outcome. Permanent feedback on the learning process takes place by the ongoing monitoring and the final control. In addition to this control circuit model, it is emphasised that different components play a role in learning. The component model distinguishes four components: (1) cognitive, (2) emotional, (3) motivational and (4) social aspects. Self-regulated learning and the Action Regulation Theory

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN GROUPS Self-regulated learning and the constructivist paradigm In the Constructivist Learning Theory, learning is understood as a construction process of mental activities and their internal representations. Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl (1999) write, that knowledge is not a copy of reality, but a construction by humans, and that knowledge is neither an external object which can be transported from teacher to learner, nor is it a true internal representation of a particular subject. This means that learners interpret their perceptions on the basis of previous knowledge and construct new knowledge as a result. From this Gerstenmeier and Mandl (1995) conclude, that in order to evade the problem of inert knowledge, learners should not see themselves as passive recipients of knowledge but as active, self-controlled learners. They should be increasingly able to plan, organise, carry out and evaluate their learning by themselves. You can find this in the instructional models of the Constructivist Approaches (Anchored Instruction, Cognitive Flexibility Approach, Cognitive Apprenticeship Approach). Characteristics of these instructional models are described by Gerstenmeier and Mandl (1995) as: • authenticity and situatedness • multiple contexts and multiple perspectives • social context

114

The cognitive part of the learning process – the course of a ’learning episode’ – is explained in more detail by Hacker (1978) in his Action Regulation Theory. This theory derives from occupational psychology and was originally designed for conveying motor work sequences in industry. Its description of cognitive action regulation in the learning process suggests its application to general learning processes. Hacker understands human acting as a foresighted, target-oriented action on the basis of internal representation. When planning an action, a target is fixed, from which sub-goals can be derived, and from this subordinated targets can then also be derived. In this way, a hierarchical order of targets is generated and the targets can be dealt with in sequence. In this context, the Action Regulation Theory talks of hierarchical-sequential organisation in the regulation of an action. Each of these steps of dealing with the individual targets represents a complete cyclic action. As in the process model of self-regulated learning, these steps consist of a planning, execution and a control stage. Therefore, permanent controls take place even on the lowest target levels. In this way, the action is permanently monitored, and the planning can be corrected if necessary, even on the higher levels. It is quite possible to obtain advances in the different target levels at differing velocities.

This analysis of building a hierarchical order of targets is called action regulation in the Action Regulation Theory. It is only possible to build target orders if ideas of the action are present, or if they can be developed. The totality of these ideas of what has to be done is called operative cognitive task representation in the Action Regulation Theory and comprises, besides the targets, also the necessary actions to reach the targets and the execution conditions. The generation of an operative cognitive task representation and the generation of an action regulation are called learning (Duscheleit, 1983). For the educational support of cognitive learning processes, we can derive that the learning target is first divided into sub-goals in order to stimulate the generation of an Operative Cognitive Task Representation. In this way, the combining of individual, already practiced action steps into new, bigger action sequences will be facilitated for the learner. In these processes, reflection plays an important role, so that the learner is enabled to increasingly regulate his actions independently. Self-regulated learning and learning in groups The Action Regulation Theory concentrates on the cognitive process of learning. The remaining aspects of the component model are not considered. But in this context, self-regulation does not mean only the freedom to decide what, when, where and how one wants to learn. It also places additional requirements on the learner: The learner himself is responsible for all stages of the learning process. He does not only have to possess the cognitive capacities to plan his learning process independently, i.e. to generate sensible sub-goals and operative cognitive task representations, he must also continually motivate himself, be emotionally available to the subject matter and the different forms of delivery, and finally, navigate a successful social integration as learning almost always occurs within a social context. If the learner is left to himself, frustration can easily arise. In order to sufficiently support the motivational, emotional and social aspects of learning, a comprehensive educational model is needed (cf. Brüggen in this volume), which also takes into account the co-learners. Many fields – especially in Humanities – can best be made accessible within discourse. Therefore, learning groups also have an essential function in the cognitive treatment process.

Here, it is of crucial importance that the focus is not only the acquisition of pure facts, but also dealing with different opinions and generating an individual point of view. Negotiating meanings in discourse and finding solution strategies together will have positive influence on the motivation of the group. Through common events and experiences a sense of group and community emerges, which again strengthens the identification with the group and the subject material. Also, competition amongst the group and mutual help create bonds. Within this, emotions play a crucial role, which are to a degree also socially determined. Within this context, learning groups must be seen as self-regulated entities. They execute the learning processes in the sense of the Action Regulation Theory as cyclic complete actions: they plan, act and control the process. In this sense, the group as a whole is responsible for the success of their learning activities. The individual does not decide by himself, but has to co-ordinate and deal with the other group members in all learning stages. On the one hand compromises must be found, opinions have to be forwarded and solutions found in discourse, and on the other hand, decisions that have been taken must also be supported and put into practice by all group members. In this way, the group can remain capable of action in all stages of self-regulated learning processes. The social skills of the group members are an essential contribution to the success of the learning activities. The social climate within the group has a high level of influence on the emotions and the motivation of the group members. In short, the outcomes of the learning activities of self-regulated groups are only as good as the degree to which each individual integrates into the group and acts within it. Even though the group is the entity of self-regulation, the individual group member actively takes part in the process: He will be involved in the construction of the group opinion and group organisation. In this way, the individual group member will acquire and further develop social and communicative competencies. Moreover, within the group, a bond is generated, a group sense, which bears a higher level of motivation. TUTOR TRAINING ONLINE-SEMINAR”

IN

THE

“LEIPZIG

115

The Department for Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig has been testing the implementation of self-regulated learning as a group process in a TELE since 1999. The ‘Leipzig Online Seminar’, an online seminar on the subject of media literacy, is combined with a tutor training for e-learning within a master plan. Students from media studies and educational careers from different institutions for higher education within central Germany take part. In a curriculum of three terms (cf. Figure 1) with a consistent didactic concept, the students, together with the teachers, deal in practice and in theory with new media. Herein, the students increasingly take on responsibility and act independently.

online course 1st term

1st term

participation

participation

tutor training execution & evaluation

3rd term

planning & designing

2nd term

execution & evaluation

3rd term

Figure1: The three term training of the ‚Leipziger Online-Seminar Each year around fifty students on average take part in the online seminar; the subsequent tutor training usually takes place with eight to ten students. Since 2002 the educational platform ILIAS has been used as a tool throughout the whole cycle. The online seminar takes place on the platform, and participants use it as communication tool for their group tasks and for the communication with their tutors. In the tutor training, the tutor group works with the educational platform as author and uses the integrated author tool. The platform also serves as a documentation and communication tool. In this way, students get to know the possibilities and limits of the platform from both perspectives – from the point of view of the learner and from the point of view of the teacher. The Online Seminar At the beginning of the training cycle, an online seminar is organised, in which participants deal in

116

theory and in practice with the notion of “media literacy”, which is crucial to media education. The seminar consists of two online stages, which are each concluded with a two-day attendance meeting. In the first online stage, participants deal in groups with different topical media, educational concepts of media literacy, elaborate the basis and results of recent research on the promotion of media literacy in young people and adults through literature, and get to know methods for conveying media literacy. The different lectures are made available to the students weekly. In the first stage of the seminar, the students learn and apply the working methods of selfregulated learning in an online seminar, e.g. discussing an issue in online forums, planning and organising group work online and presenting common work results. The first attendance meeting takes place at the end of this theory stage. It serves the consolidation and deepening of the basics that have been elaborated up to this point and the homogenisation of the knowledge level of the participants, as well as the presentation and discussion of the group results that have been achieved online. Moreover, this attendance meeting leads to the second phase of the seminar which is more practice-oriented. In the second online phase students apply their theoretical knowledge to concepts for media educational projects for the promotion of media literacy. Students develop scripts. These project conceptions are presented at the end of the seminar in the second attendance meeting to the other work groups. They are discussed and tested in play. This final meeting is also used for a qualitative evaluation of the seminar. In the first part of the online seminar, participants are lead by student tutors, in order to familiarise them with the way of working in the seminar. Each week, a new lesson is enabled, in which a linear navigation clearly indicates the way for learning and the subgoals that are to be reached. There are concrete tasks and instructions, and the tutors approach participants actively. In this phase they acquire as a byproduct, the competencies in planning and execution of common work on the Internet. The tutors stimulate reflection of the group work. With the increasing confidence of the participants, the tutors give less and less advice on the ways of working and promote self-regulation within the groups.

In the second online phase learning groups elaborate, largely through self-regulation, a script for a media educational project. Tutors set up sub-goals, provide advice and stimulate evaluation of the script drafts. On the second attendance meeting, the group presents its project to the whole seminar, and in doing so the results are evaluated under authentic conditions. In the course of this term, students learn how to deal with problems in online communities in an increasingly independent way. They acquire the tools for the following two terms of tutor training in which they apply their knowledge to a real project, a new online seminar. The tutor training The tutor training, with a focus on conception and production of an online seminar, starts in the following summer term. Interested students from the previous online seminar form a tutor group and prepare the next seminar, execute it the following winter term and present it to the new participants. In changing from the perspective of participants to the perspective of provider, their own experiences as learners are dealt with again, reflected and applied to a new seminar. Herein, the group as a whole acts as a self-regulated entity. The decisions in the processes of planning and acting are negotiated in the tutor group and afterwards they are applied by the individual. An essential part of the group work is reflection on group processes and group results. This serves the ongoing assessment of the whole project and its sub-processes. In the planning phase, the tutor group elaborates in discourse the hierarchical sequential organisation of the development process as well as of the implementation of a new online seminar. It sets itself goals, devises acting strategies and monitors the execution phase. The most important tool for the group is the platform ILIAS; it supports the communication between the group members, decision processes are documented in an understandable way, and last but not least the new seminar is planned, produced and finally realized on the platform. The third term of this cycle is the execution of the seminar which has been drafted by the tutor group, as well as the control of the planning of the seminar. Flaws in the conception have tangible consequences under the authentic conditions of the every-day

academic life with real students. This ‘pressure of reality’ is a huge motivation for the tutors. In all its activities, the tutor group is guided and attended by two members of the Department of Media Education and Further Education. At the beginning of the development, teachers do not only prefix the framework within which the seminar will take place, but also stimulate regulatory processes and moderate the discourse in the group. In the course of the work, the group identifies itself increasingly with the product of their work and acts more and more independently. In the execution in the winter term the tutor group as a whole, but also every individual tutor, feels responsible for the positive outcome of the seminar. Conclusion Thus, in the course of their three term training, students first deal with the notion of media literacy and experiment with new forms of teaching and learning as participants of the online seminar. Subsequently, they apply their experiences to a new seminar and change from the side of the participant to the side of the provider in further developing and creating the seminar as tutors. The group is the authority of self-regulation in the tutor training, but the individual contributes actively to the learning process and is highly involved. It cannot be suggested that the skills for self-regulation and group work are already fully developed. This is why the tutor training is integrated into the process, in which students are lead from guided learning to increasing independence. They do not only learn how to draft, produce and create an e-learning course, but also the necessary acting strategies for such a project and respectively enlarge their social competence. REFERENCES Duscheleit, S. (1983). Arbeitspädagogische Maßnahmen auf der Grundlage der psychologischen Handlungstheorie. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 79, 163-173. Gerstenmaier, J. and Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 6, 867-887. Hacker, W. (1978). Allgemeine Arbeits- und Ingenieurpsychologie. Huber: Bern. Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. and Mandl, H. (1999). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten. Forschungsbe-

117

richt Nr. 60. Institut für pädagogische Psychologie und Empirische Pädagogik, LMU München. TELEPEERS consortium. (2005). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environment, Draft, Version 1.0 (May 31, 2005). Zimmermann, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts; P. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Selfregulation. New York: Academic Press, 13-39.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES ANKE DOMMASCHK was born in Herzberg/Elster, Germany. She studied at the University of Leipzig and University of Groningen (Netherlands) and graduated as M.A. in communication and media studies and American studies. Since 2002, she has been working as a researcher and lecturer at the Centre for Media and Communication and at the Department of Media

118

Education and Further Education of the University of Leipzig. Since then, she has been involved in different e-learning projects and has been coaching the tutor groups of the ‘Leipziger Online-Seminar’. STEPHEN FRANK was born in Kiel, Germany. After graduating with a Diploma in Pedagogics at the Technical University of Braunschweig, he worked at the ‘Centre for Man-Machine-Interaction’ at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern. From 2002, he has worked at the ‘Bildungsportal Sachsen’. Until 2005, he has advised and supported high school teachers in several e-learning projects and has been coaching the tutor groups of the ‘Leipziger OnlineSeminar’. He also lectures Didactics of tele-learning at the Universities of Leipzig and Braunschweig and works toward his doctorate at the University Leipzig.

THE USE OF ILIAS IN STUDENT PROJECTS TO FOSTER SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Niels Brüggen Department of Media Education and Further Education University of Leipzig Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1, 04105 Leipzig, Germany E-mail: brueggen@uni-leipzig © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS

INTRODUCTION

ILIAS, open source learning management system, self-regulated learning

Experts agree that strengthening self-regulated learning at universities would improve the quality of university education. However, teaching situations at universities are still often such that students are forced into a largely passive role. The lecture provides a good example for this. In university education the active role of learners, which proven learning theories have shown is a necessary part of the learning process, is insufficiently taken into consideration. Adherents of this perspective observed the introduction of multimedia and the internet with anticipation, hoping that the use of such technologies would make possible a stronger individual integration of students into the learning process. However, current statistics suggest that the hope for this fulfilment must be viewed with scepticism: The majority of instructors at German universities seem to think that the use of such technologies is limited to providing lecture scripts online. (Kleimann et al., 2005)

ABSTRACT This paper discusses how the Open Source Learning Management System ILIAS can be used to foster self-regulated learning experiences in student projects. On the basis of the deeper understanding of self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments and the evaluation results of ILIAS provided by the telepeers project the article seeks to give insight into ILIAS in practice. It is suggested in this article that educational models be described and further developed on the basis of the telepeers project, in order to initiate a veritable improvement of teaching/learning processes at universities. The importance of these educational models for improvement will be exemplified by two case studies from teaching at the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig. Key aspects of the article are the great importance that is ascribed to the social integration of self-regulated learning processes and criteria for designing learning environments allowing a detailed analysis and description of educational models.

In light of this situation, the telepeers project provides an essential contribution to fostering a deeper understanding of self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments and to creating evaluation standards for various technological applications. It is suggested in this article that educational models be described and further developed on this basis, in order to initiate a veritable improvement of teaching/learning processes at universities. The importance of these educational

119

models for improvement will be exemplified by two case studies. In both projects, applied in teaching at the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig, the learning platform ILIAS is used and great importance is ascribed to self-regulated learning and social integration into the learning process. Regarding this, an important basic idea is that self-regulated learning is not a model with which only individual learning processes can be observed but that these learning processes can be observed embedded in a social context with peers. This emphasizes the social aspects of the component model of self-regulated learning, on which the telepeers project is based (TELEPEERS consortium. 2005). Thus, this article intends to explore the following question: How can selfregulated learning in student learning projects be fostered by the use of the technology-enhanced learning environment ILIAS? THE TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNINGENVIRONMENT ILIAS The learning platform ILIAS - An Integrated System for Learning, Information Seeking and Cooperative Working (Integriertes Lern-, Informations- und Arbeitskooperationssystem) was developed at the University of Cologne and is available as a multilingual open source application. Factors that contribute to the strength of the TELE • The TELE allows for feedback by peers and tutors • Communication with peers and students is well facilitated • There are a number of feedback mechanisms that help students to monitor their learning • The TELE supports collaborative learning and working • The TELE is open source and therefore free of charge Factors that represent weaknesses of the TELE • •

Navigation takes some time to get accustomed to Motivational and emotional factors are not explicitly taken into consideration Table 1: The telepeers Evaluation of ILIAS (quoted from: http://www.lmi.ub.es/taconet/casestudies/13.pdf )

120

ILIAS was one of the learning environments analysed in the project “TELEPEERS – Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments at University Level: A Peer Review”. Methods and results of the applied procedure have been described in the project documentation, and therefore only the basic results will be discussed in the present article (see Table 1). It is evident that factors contributing to the strength of ILIAS can be found in the communication between the participants involved in the teaching/learning process (students, tutors, instructors). An evaluation, therefore, suggests that this TELE is especially suitable for projects in which collaborative learning is to be fostered. As a weakness of ILIAS, the unusual navigation is mentioned, addressing usability problems. Furthermore, it is stated that motivational and emotional aspects are not explicitly taken into consideration. This finding is significant with respect to the component model, on which the evaluation of the telepeers project is based. The four components of self-regulated learning are considered to be “(1) cognitive, (2) emotional, (3) motivational and (4) social aspect[s]” (TELEPEERS consortium, 2005). If two of these components are not supported, this assessment at least questions the usefulness of this TELE for fostering processes of self-regulated learning. The factors identified as weaknesses of ILIAS in the evaluation need to be analysed especially closely in practice. Such an analysis will be conducted in the following paragraphs, using examples from teaching at the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig. ILIAS IN PRACTICE Since 2000, ILIAS has been used at the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig in order to explore new ways of cooperative learning in networks and thus to improve teaching. Based upon the experience accumulated in the years since, we would like to suggest how the weaknesses of ILIAS could be addressed in practice.

Revising the design of the ILIAS user interface

The practical use of the navigation confirmed that it constitutes a weak spot of ILIAS. In the years 2000-2004, ILIAS was provided at our department as a central learning platform for all Saxon universities within the Saxony-wide project „Bildungsportal Sachsen“ (learning portal of Saxony). In these years, the platform was evaluated

Figure 1: ILIAS personal desktop (standard design, left),

and further developed. Findings of this evaluation included the fact that users experienced the operating desktop as confusing. This corresponds to the findings in the telepeers project, even though a more current version of ILIAS was evaluated. A brief overview of the redesigned interface is provided by means of the two screenshots below (figure 1). A central element of redesigning the desktop consisted of transforming the navigational structure of ILIAS into an index card register. This was welcomed by the users and allows for an enhanced use of the platform. Motivation and emotion in ILIAS The fact that motivational and emotional aspects are not explicitly supported by the ILIAS learning environment was considered to be a weakness by participants of the telepeers project with respect to the component model of self-regulated learning. Since these aspects constitute an integral part of the learning process, it is important that they be included in (non-technological) learning environments. In order to be able to assess these aspects in the practical work of the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig, the

educational context or, respectively, the educational model of two projects, in which ILIAS was used, will be outlined below. The Leipzig online course in media literacy Brief description: In the „Leipzig online course“, new methods for

(redesigned ILIAS, right)

cooperative learning in networks have been developed, tested‚ and further developed since 1999. The concept of the course is such that it links the topic „media literacy“ for students of communication and media studies as well as education studies to a training course for e-learning tutors in an online offer of educational opportunities, provided in a period of three phases which are concurrently based. Students of several German universities deal with theoretical and practical aspects of media literacy, a key concept in media education. The participants of the online course undergo online learning using ILIAS (phase 1). Interested students can then switch from being participants to being providers by evaluating and further developing the course as authors (phase 2) and subsequently accompanying the project as tutors (phase 3). Doing this, they reflect on their experience as participants and offer it as a guide for the new course. The tutors are accompanied and guided by two employees from the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig. Central ideas of the course concept are the continuing evaluation and further development of the course, a blended learning scenario, working in groups,

121

accompanying learners through student tutors and leading learners to self-regulated learning and a literate use of the new media. ILIAS as part of the Leipzig online course The learning platform ILIAS is used in all three phases of the project. In phase 1 of the course, HTML pages programmed in ILIAS, audio files, and video streams are provided as a learning module. These materials are didactically prepared including individual and group exercises and can be used in chronological sequences. Regarding the communication in groups, the e-mail system in ILIAS and discussion forums can be used. In phase 2, materials can be found on the ILIAS platform, providing information on the educational preparation of online courses, which can be downloaded if needed. When developing courses, students work with the author tool provided in ILIAS. When accompanying the course as tutors, the students enable the prepared materials sequentially throughout the course. In order to communicate with participants, they use the e-mail system in ILIAS and discussion forums. SRL within the Leipzig online course The Leipzig online course comprises project phases with varying degrees of guidance, based upon the basic idea that students need to be led to selfregulated learning. Thus, they first acquire skills during the first phase in order to be able to work in a self-regulated fashion. SRL process model in the Leipzig online course Phase 1: Participant Phase 2: Author Phase 3: Tutor

Guided Learning activity (Learning SRL) Evaluation and Planning Execution of SR Learning activity

Table 1: SRL in the Leipzig online course Guided learning activities for the participants in the online learning course thus serve as a preparation for entering the process of self-regulated learning. In the subsequent phase, learners take on the role of authors and reflect together upon their online learning

122

experience (evaluation) in order to implement their experience in planning the new course. They will then be confronted with the outcomes of their planning as tutors in the execution (2) of the course they planned. With respect to the SRL component model, the principle of group work is considered to be very important. In all phases of the project, students work intensively with other students. In the course phase, they work as participants with other participants. They are asked to discuss topics online and to develop a project concept together. Thus in observing collaborative learning, processes of self-regulation can also be identified in groups. Participants are supported by student tutors, who comment on their work and provide help for the continuation of the work. When working as authors or tutors, the students also collaborate predominantly in groups and must apply skills, gained before as participants, to reach agreements in the group. The social integration of the learning process, and the described effects, exert a significant influence on the motivation and the emotional involvement of the students in the learning process of the Leipzig online course. This is confirmed by results obtained in the continual evaluation of the Leipzig online course, showing that • • •

It is a significant motivational factor for students to be guided by other students, It motivates the authors to carry out the project themselves and to be given scope for implementation by the university, and The responsibility to guide peer students through the course motivates the tutors for managing the enormous tuition workload.

This learning concept has been implemented successfully since 1999. Since then, students have continually passed through the three phases of the Leipzig online course and were, with each new course, able to improve the project. The “Werkstatt Educational Media)

Lernmedien”

(Workshop

Brief description As a consequence of the adoption of Bachelor and Master programmes at the University of Leipzig, not enough time will be designated in future curricula to

carry out the Leipzig online course with the three phases described above. Therefore, a new course concept had to be developed for future study programmes with the goal to convey media education-related content in a project course, including the proven elements of self-regulated and social learning. However, only one term will be devoted to this project according to the new curriculum. Based upon the experience from the Leipzig online course, the second phase of the course has been found to be especially worthy of maintaining. This is the phase in which students were able to plan and implement their own online course, based upon their individual online learning experience. As opposed to the Leipzig online course, students participating in the Workshop Educational Media were to conceptualise and implement only a six-week education, significantly reducing the workload compared to the 15-week Leipzig online course. ILIAS as part of the Workshop Educational Media: In the Workshop Educational Media, ILIAS is used similarly to the second phase of the Leipzig online course. Students can use similar materials providing information on the didactical conceptualisation of online courses, which can be downloaded if needed. The development of the courses also involves work with the author tool provided in ILIAS. SRL as part of the Workshop Educational Media The planning and developing of an online course should, similar to the Leipzig online course, be implemented as a learning process with a high degree of selfregulation. It has been found in the test phase in the winter term of 2004/2005 and the summer term of 2005, however, that guidance for the work groups needed to be carried out much more intensively by the accompanying instructors than in the Leipzig online course. Learners were not able to plan and implement the group work in a self-regulated fashion. At the end of both courses the groups had not finished implementing the online course. As opposed to the Leipzig online course, the set goals were not reached in this course. Therefore, the course will be redesigned before being integrated into the teaching at the Department of Media Education and Further Education at the University of Leipzig Criteria for describing educational models

Learning successes turned out to be very different in each case even though ILIAS was used in nearly the same way in the described case studies. We can thus assume that it is not only the use of the technologyenhanced learning environment that determines the success of a course concept. However, even the educational models of both projects appear to be similar on the surface. In order to establish the differences, it is necessary to analyse the projects according to educational preparation criteria, which allow us to achieve an understanding of the educational models. For this, criteria developed out of a constructivist perspective on learning seem suitable, in order to be able to grasp the active contribution of learners in self-regulated learning processes. Mandl and colleagues (Gerstenmaier and Mandl, 1995; Mandl et al., 1997), presenting this perspective, summarize three basic requirements for the design of learning environments: Authenticity and situatedness: “The learning environment is to enable learners to deal with realistic problems and authentic situations and is thus to provide the framework and application context for the knowledge to be obtained”. (Mandl et al., 1997). Regarding self-regulated learning processes, this criterion appears to be especially important since realistic problems and action-orientedness are directly linked to the process model of self-regulated learning (planning, implementation, evaluation). Multiple contexts and perspectives: “The learning environment is to offer multiple contexts to the learner in order to guarantee that knowledge does not remain focused on one context but can be flexibly transferred to other problematic situations. Furthermore, learners are given the opportunity to view problems from multiple perspectives. Thus, they learn to see and process contents depending upon varying aspects and from different angles. This is to foster a flexible application of knowledge“. (Mandl et al., 1997). Especially self-regulated learning processes require the skill of learners to constantly reassess new situations and to adapt the individual learning process accordingly. Social context: “Learning environments need to ascribe importance to the social context. Cooperative learning and problem-solving in learning groups need to be promoted as much as shared learning and working by learners and experts within the

123

framework of embedded problem situations“. (Mandl et al., 1997). Great importance is also ascribed to social aspects of the learning process in the telepeers component model. According to the criteria briefly introduced above, the differences between both projects can be established as follows: Authenticity and situatedness Leipzig online course: Learners participating in the Leipzig online course prepare the next online course in the author phase, which they will implement themselves. Thus, they are confronted with a realistic problem. This leads to high emotional involvement since learners know that they will execute the online course themselves and that they must take on responsibility for the course. Workshop Educational Media: Learners will not accompany the online education course themselves, which leads to a lack of the identification described above. Multiple contexts and multiple perspectives Leipzig online course: Learners have grown to know the Leipzig online course as participants and were asked in the author phase to look at their individual learning experience from a different perspective. It is absolutely necessary for the conceptualisation of an online course to be able to adopt the perspective of learners. Workshop Educational Media: Learners have not yet participated in an online education course themselves, which prevents them from switching perspectives when conceptualising an online education course themselves.

and have yet to develop the skills necessary for online-supported group work. It can be concluded that the utilisation of the technology-enhanced learning environment ILIAS in both projects was nearly the same and that the different successes of the projects can thus be linked to the difference of the educational models. To describe such educational models, criteria for designing learning environments can be used. At the same time, it is certainly necessary to further develop these criteria, especially with regard to the requirements of self-regulated learning. CONCLUSION The practical work with the technology-enhanced learning environment ILIAS confirmed the evaluation results obtained in the telepeers project on the basis of the developed tools. The weaknesses of the TELE ILIAS could be confirmed in the practical implementation. This means that the educational model in which a technology-enhanced learning environment is used can be described as the decisive criterion for success or failure of learning processes in technology-enhanced learning environments. A more detailed analysis and description of educational models was carried out following the criteria of ‘authenticity and situatedness’, ‘multiple contexts and multiple perspectives’, and ‘social context’. A broadening of perspective appears to be necessary. Even if it is true that the potential of a learning platform to foster self-regulated learning processes can be uncovered, in order to use this potential successfully, adequate educational models are needed. REFERENCES

Social context Leipzig online course: Learners have typically grown to know one another for one term. They have experienced process dynamics of group work together with the other participants and accordingly acquired skills and strategies for group work. In addition, switching roles to be a tutor provides social prestige and involves taking on responsibility for a group of participants when guiding the online course. Workshop Educational Media: In the Workshop Educational Media learners do not know each other

124

Gerstenmaier, J.; Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 6, 867-887. Kleimann, B.; Willige, J. & Weber, S. (2005). E-Learning aus Sicht der Studierenden. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Online-Erhebung. In Auf zu neuen Ufern! E-Learning heute und morgen. Münster: Waxmann, 167-176. Mandl, H.; Gruber, H. & Renkl, A. (1997). Situiertes Lernen in multimedialen Lernumgebungen. In L. J.; Issing, and P. Klimsa (Eds.). Information und Lernen mit Multimedia. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union, 166-178.

TELEPEERS consortium. (2005). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments Draft, Version 1.0 (May 31, 2005)

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY NIELS BRÜGGEN was born in Stuttgart, Germany. He studied at the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Dublin City University (Ireland) and graduated with an M.A. in communication and media studies, computational studies and educational studies. Since

2004, he has been working as a researcher at the Centre for Media and Communication of the University of Leipzig and is teaching at the Department of Media Education and Further Education. He has contributed various research and development projects in the areas of media in learning processes and the evaluation of educational media. Currently, he is involved in developing a university network aimed at incorporating online learning into university-level further education.

125

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE, VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Giuliana Dettori, Tania Giannetti, Donatella Persico Institute for Educational Technology Italian National Research Council Via de Marini 6 16149, Genova Italy E-mail: {dettori|giannetti|persico}@itd.cnr.it © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Self-Regulated Learning, Communities of Practice, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Virtual Learning Communities, Interaction Analysis, Case Study, Role Play, Jigsaw

The results of the study do not seem to support the claim that these SRL aspects were significantly developed throughout the 10 weeks of the course, but rather suggested that role-play encouraged the adoption of SRL techniques more than the other strategies used in the course.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION In this paper, we analyze self-regulated learning (SRL) in computer supported collaborative environments, which are the natural workspaces of virtual learning communities and of many communities of practice. The discussion is based on the case study of an online course in educational technology for trainee teachers. The potential of the learning environment used for this course was first evaluated with a peer review procedure set up within the European project TELEPEERS. To integrate this approach, some quantitative and qualitative (anecdotical) data was analysed concerning aspects of the interactions among participants. In particular, this paper focuses on four indicators that could inform the analysis of the social component of SRL: the ratio between student and tutor messages, giving a measure of student autonomy; the average length of threads initiated by tutors, indicating participants’ reactivity to tutors; the average length of threads initiated by students, namely reactivity to peers; and the percentage of threads initiated by students, that is student proactivity.

126

In this paper, the relationship between Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and Communities of Practice (CoPs) is analysed, based on the authors’ experience in the field of teacher training. The paper also refers to the concept of the Virtual Learning Community (VLC), which is related to the CoP notion in that it shares the basic socio-constructivist idea of collaboration aimed at knowledge building and sharing. According to Wenger (2002) and Bettoni (2005), a Community of Practice is “a group or a network of people functioning as an informal organisational structure […] whose members participate voluntarily, sharing the interest and passion in a knowledge domain and […] applying the results in their daily job”. The notion of CoP can be related to the concept of SRL, defined by Zimmerman (2000) as the ability of an individual to actively control his or her own learning process from three points of view: the metacognitive, the motivational, and the behavioural. If a group of people gives itself an informal, organisational structure, then its members are exerting some form of meta-cognitive control over

the social and physical components of their learning environment. If they participate voluntarily, with interest and passion for the knowledge domain, then they are certainly driven by a strong motivation. If they apply their results to their daily job, then they are active participants in their own learning process. These considerations seem to prove that there is a strong relationship between the concepts of CoP and SRL; the relationship, however, does not necessarily imply that CoPs are the ideal environment to develop SRL skills, but rather that they are a setting where SRL skills are needed since CoP members, by definition, must be able to use them. It may well be that such skills develop even further as they are applied, but they certainly have to be there from the very beginning, at least to some extent. Researchers who are interested in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) that support the development of those SRL skills required by CoPs should therefore look for a connecting element, that is, a virtual environment where SRL can germinate before it is expected to grow. This paper formulates and aims to demonstrate the hypothesis that VLCs are such an environment. Their participants can be supported and guided as far as necessary and be encouraged to take control of their learning in a gradual way through the well known techniques of scaffolding and fading (Collins et al, 1989). The relationship between SRL and online learning,, however, is quite a complex one. As a matter of fact, even if the so-called teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000) can be reduced in favour of more selfregulation, the social element sets boundaries to learners’ control. This gives rise to a dilemma. On the one hand, online learning requires a high degree of autonomy and self-regulation, while on the other hand, the socio-constructivist approach that underlies most online education initiatives entails a strong learner dependency on tutors’ and each other’s moderating and coordinating actions. More specifically, effective participation in a VLC requires learning to learn in a social context, which means, to mention just a few examples: ƒ ƒ

taking initiatives but respecting other people’s work; being proactive but also able to take advantage of peers’ feedback and experience;

ƒ ƒ ƒ

freely and autonomously administrating the time devoted to learning while taking into account community needs and constraints; expressing personal emotions as well as being in tune with the general atmosphere; seeking support to control anxiety and stress but also offering help in analogous circumstances.

In other words, SRL in a VLC requires the ability to strike a balance between autonomy and cooperation, and at the same time helps the students to develop it, throughout a whole learning experience. In order to improve Self-Regulated Learning in VLCs, researchers should tackle a number of questions: ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

are there any specific SRL abilities that online learning has the potential to develop better than others? are there any cooperative learning strategies that support the development of SRL skills better than others? how can we take advantage of the features of asynchronous textual communication, which is most commonly used in online education, in order to draw conclusions about the development or non-development of SRL abilities of some kind? are there indicators of self-regulation that can be monitored in order to provide evidence of its development?

This paper discusses the above points based on quantitative data from a case study in teacher education. In particular, the paper focuses on the social aspects of SRL, which according to previous studies (Dettori et al., 2005a; Dettori et al., 2005b) are the main strengths of this kind of environment. Some quantitative indicators that can inform the analysis of students’ interactions are proposed and discussed, with a view to monitoring and understanding the evolution of SRL abilities in trainee teachers. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY This study was carried out within the framework of the TELEPEERS project, where two evaluation tools, TELE-SRL and TELESTUDENT-SRL, were developed to analyse the support provided to SRL by different kinds of TELEs. The model adopted within the TELEPEERS project, drawing from Zimmerman (2000), identifies different dimensions of SRL at the cognitive, social, emotional and motivational levels.

127

The Institute for Educational Technology (ITD), part of the Italian National Research Council, investigated the potential for SRL of Computer Supported Collaborative Environments based on a socioconstructivist learning approach. To this end, the ITD selected a course in Educational Technology for trainee teachers as its experimental field and two different editions of the course were investigated. The first edition, run in 2004, was carried out at the beginning of the TELEPEERS project, while the second edition, run in 2005, was carried out when the project was already more than half way through. Since the analysis of the 2005 edition is still in progress, this paper focuses on the 2004 edition. In particular, it provides a description of the course, the method adopted to collect data about SRL development (including both the use of one of the questionnaires produced by the TELEPEERS consortium and a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interactions among participants), and a synthesis of the results. Particular attention is paid to the approach adopted in the quantitative analysis of interaction, because it could be a promising method for gathering data, though it needs to be refined and fine tuned before it can be used more extensively. Finally, the results of the study are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that VLCs are, or at least can be if well managed, a suitable incubator for SRL abilities. Such abilities can later be exploited in teachers’ professional development programs where, according to many (Schlager and Fusco 2004), CoPs play a very important role. Course description The 2004 edition of the course in Educational Technology (from now on referred to as TD-SSIS 2004) was run by the ITD for the Specialisation School in Secondary Teaching in the second semester of the academic year 2003/2004. The course lasted 10 weeks and was entirely based on online activities supported by a computer mediated communication system (CMC), except for three face to face meetings at the beginning, half-way through and at the end of the course. The participants were 15 trainee teachers who had volunteered for this training approach. The learning activities, based on several collaborative strategies, are described in Table 1. Each activity took place in a discussion area devoted to it and was moderated by a tutor.

128

Activity title: Breaking the ice Timeline: Week 1 Objectives: Familiarisation with the learning environment and with other participants Method and content: Each participant is requested to identify common interests with another participant, so as to build a circular chain. Strategy: Game Group composition: one heterogeneous group of 15 Activity title: Introduction to educational technology Timeline: Weeks 2 and 3 Objectives: Getting acquainted with the basic terminology Method and content: each participant is required to read some introductory documents and discuss things that are unclear or seem particularly interesting with group mates Strategy: open ended discussion Group composition: three heterogeneous groups of 5 Activity title: Learning theories Timeline: Weeks 4 and 5 Objectives: Establishing a theoretical framework of educational technology by analysing its history and underlying learning theories Method and content: Participants were split into three groups, each of which studied in depth one of the theories: behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism. Next, new groups were formed with one “expert” for each theory. The new group was asked to fill in a table to compare the three approaches Strategy: Jigsaw Group composition: Three heterogeneous groups of 5 Activity title: Educational software Timeline: Weeks 6 and 7 Objectives: Getting an idea of the different types of existing educational software Method and content: analysis of educational software of various kinds (from classic drill and practice to reference works and constructivist learning environments) Strategy: Peer review Group composition: Small homogeneous groups, according to background, from 2 to 7 people Activity title: Webquests Timeline: Weeks 8 and 9 Objectives: To become aware of the range of online resources available for teachers and to analyse the webquests in detail. Method and content: Practice with online educational activities, with particular focus on webquests (Pohan and Mathison, 1998) Strategy: Role play Group composition: Three groups of 5 Activity title: Case studies Timeline: From weeks 6 to 9 Objectives: In-depth study of one topic chosen from: teachers’ communities of practice; an analysis of the educational potential of written interaction in CMC

environments; a case study on a European project concerning the definition of a syllabus for teacher training in ICT Method and content: Virtual visit to the webheads (URL) and Tapped-in CoPs; study of a model (Garrison et al 2000) of cognitive, social and teaching presence; case study of the results of the U-teacher project (Midoro and Admiral, 2003) Strategy: Guided tour for the first activity, free discussion for the second, case study for the third Group composition: three groups, sized from 4 to 6 Activity title: Winding-up Timeline: Week 10 Objectives: Winding-up meta-cognitive reflections, self evaluation, course evaluation Method and content: Meta-reflection on the learning process Strategy: Individual comments Group composition: One heterogeneous group of 15 Activity title: Meta-cognitive reflection Timeline: From week 1 to 10 Objectives: Developing meta-cognitive reflections on course content and method Method and content: Meta-reflection on the learning process Strategy: Open discussion Group composition: One heterogeneous group of 15

Table 1: Structure of the 2004 edition of the course in Educational Technology

and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000) that are integral to a VLC. In other words, the amount and quality of support received by the students was heavily dependent on the tutoring style adopted and on the social behaviour of their peers. However, given that the evaluation of the TELE takes these factors into account, the results of this case study are only applicable to contexts where similar learning strategies and tutoring approaches are adopted. As a consequence, the study evaluates the “potentialities” of the TELE without guaranteeing they will be developed. Evaluation based on the TELE-SRL Questionnaire The TELE-SRL questionnaire consists of three sections, one for each of the different phases of the learning process (planning, execution and monitoring, evaluation). Each section contains items related to the four aspects of SRL (cognitive, motivational, emotional and social). Overall, it comprises 43 statements, and for each of these the evaluator is required to rate, on a six-point scale, to what extent the TELE supports the ability described in the statement (e.g. “The TELE allows the student to personalize the interface”). A summary table at the end gives an overview of the global support given to SRL.

METHOD OF THE STUDY Data were collected in three ways. The first consisted in using the TELE-SRL questionnaire, developed by the TELEPEERS partners, to support experts in evaluating the potential of technology enhanced learning environments in the development of SRL skills. The second was based on a quantitative analysis of the interactions among course participants. The third entailed qualitative analysis of the messages exchanged by course participants, and is more thoroughly illustrated in Dettori et al. (2005a). This paper summarises the results obtained through the first and the third methods, while focusing on the quantitative analysis of the messages exchanged. Before discussing the methods used to obtain information about SRL development in our course, it is important to note that, in our approach, the environment analysed is not only the CMC system used, but the whole social environment, including the students and the tutors. In our opinion, it is impossible to express a judgement about the TELE without considering the notions of social, cognitive

This questionnaire was used in TELEPEERS for peer evaluation of several kinds of TELEs, by collecting the opinions of experts on their SRL potential. In particular, the TD-SSIS 2004 course was analysed by experts from two partner institutions, Lisbon University and Barcelona University, as well as by one of the course designers (self-evaluation). Quantitative analysis of interactions This method was used to investigate participants’ social behaviour with particular attention to aspects that the authors perceive as important in group learning activities. These aspects are herein identified as autonomy, reactivity to tutor messages, reactivity to peer messages, proactivity (taking the initiative). The indicators used to measure these aspects for each conference/activity were: - the ratio of student/tutor messages (autonomy); - the average number of messages contained in threads initiated by tutors (reactivity to tutors);

129

- the average number of messages contained in threads initiated by students (reactivity to peers). - the percentage of threads initiated by students (student proactivity). The rationale for this choice comes from the need to monitor the degree of student autonomy and their reliance on tutors’ guidance. The first indicator should give us a measure of student autonomy, the second should tell us to what extent students reacted to tutors’ stimuli, and the third the degree to which they reacted to their peers - peer centred interactivity being considered more positively than teacher centred interactivity as far as SRL is concerned. Finally, the last indicator should support the evaluation of proactivity, that is the degree to which students were able to take the initiative in the discussion process. These indicators were assessed for each individual activity, in order to draw up diagrams showing their evolution in time (by comparing activities carried out in a temporal sequence) and also the differences between various activities, to test the hypothesis that some learning strategies may turn out to foster SRL better than others.

strategies that stimulate self-regulation better than others. Data collected questionnaire

through

the

TELE-SRL

The peer evaluation of the TD-SSIS 2004 course supported the hypothesis that this kind of environment is particularly suited to fostering the social aspects of SRL, while the development of the emotional and motivational components varies with tutoring styles, community cohesiveness and quality of the social presence. Finally, the cognitive aspects seem to depend heavily on instructional design decisions. Fig.1, based on the conclusive summary table of the TELE-SRL questionnaire, clearly illustrates these results. More detailed data about this analysis can be found in Dettori et al. (2004).

Qualitative analysis of interactions A preliminary investigation of message content is provided in Dettori et al. (2005a), where anecdotal exchanges were identified and categorised indicating aspects of SRL development that deserve further investigation. Among these, some specific attitudes of the trainees were identified, such as the tendency to wait for tutors’ stimuli or react preferably to tutors rather than to peers. This preliminary study informed the choice of the indicators used in the quantitative method previously described. Quantitative analysis of the interactions among participants can in turn provide the basis for a closer analysis of message content. This is, however, beyond the scope of our paper. OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY In this section, the main outcomes of the study are described, discussing the data provided by the aforementioned analyses. Possible interpretations of the data are also suggested, in an attempt to answer some of the questions posed at the beginning of the paper, i.e. if CSCL environments support the development of SRL abilities and if there are learning

130

Fig.1: Synthesis of the analysis based on the TELESRL questionnaire Data collected through quantitative analysis of interactions The total number of messages exchanged by course participants was 1306. The analysis reported here only considers those messages exchanged by students within the eight conferences strictly related to course content. They account for 884 of the messages. The conferences that were disregarded mostly contain off topic messages, requests for technical help and other messages that do not seem relevant to the discussion. Fig.2 shows the breakdown of such postings for each activity. The course activities are in chronological order, except for “case studies”, that started with “educational software analysis” and finished with “webquests”, while “metacognitive reflection” went on throughout the whole course.

Given that some activities lasted longer than others, the differences in participation should not be considered a relevant measure of interest or involvement, but simply an indication of the importance of the activity throughout the course.

suggested how to proceed by proposing reflection topics on how the course was going on. 6 5 4 3

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2 1 metacognitive reflection

Winding-up

Case studies

Webquests

Learning theories

ed-tech intro

Fig.3: Ratio of student/tutor messages (student autonomy)

n. tutors' messages

When considering the ratio between student initiated threads and tutor initiated threads, Fig.4 shows that it is quite difficult to identify a monotonic trend in time, while there are peaks as regards the webquest activity (role play strategy) and the meta-cognitive reflection. The values of this indicator for the last activity are probably due to the way the discussion was initiated by the tutors. In fact, the moderator explicitly

p fle

ct i

ing re

in d

it iv

e

W

qu

gn m

et

a-

co

uc Ed

on

-u

ts es

es s tu

eb W

se

at

Ca

al io n

n in ar

di

ar ftw so

th g

-te Le

e

s ri e eo

in t ch

th e g k in ea br

Figs. 3 to 5 compare the various activities by showing the trends in time of the chosen indicators. In particular, Fig. 3 seems to suggest that there was quite a positive trend in the indicator that we called “student autonomy”, if we disregard the first and the last two activities, which were actually quite anomalous for different reasons. “Breaking the ice” was a game and it was not content-related, while “winding-up” was a meta-cognitive activity and, as such, certainly more critical as regards SRL. The last activity, “meta-cognitive reflection”, is not comparable with the others in terms of evolution in time because it was an ongoing activity. However, it is interesting to note that it required the highest degree of tutor support, far higher than the other meta-cognitive concluding activity. All in all, the activities where this indicator was highest were the initial game (breaking the ice), the jigsaw on learning theories, and the role play on webquests. This supports the hypothesis that these learning strategies favoured a more participatory attitude in our trainees.

ic e

Fig.2: Distribution of the messages throughout the course

ro

4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0

ed

N. students' messages

Educational software

Le in tro ar ni ng Ed th eo uc at rie io s na ls of tw ar e Ca se st ud ie s W eb qu es ts m W et i n adi co ng gn -u p itiv e re fle ct io n

th e g br ea kin

ed -te ch

ic

e

breaking the ice

0

Fig.4: Ratio between student initiated threads and tutor initiated threads (student proactivity) The trend in time of the last indicator is shown in Fig.5 (again, the last activity is an exception because it went on throughout the course). This indicator was analysed because the tutors had often had the impression that students were referring to them rather than collaborating with peers. In other words, in spite of their attempts to encourage peer-to-peer communication, they perceived the persistence of a tutor-centred attitude. This impression does not seem to be substantiated by the data, however, as the average length of tutor initiated threads is comparable to that of student initiated threads. The only relevant peak in Fig.5 relates to the mean length of threads in the “winding up” concluding activity. Here students seem to have reacted more to peers than to tutors, contrary to tutors’ fears. It would be advisable to use more accurate tools, such as, Social Network Analysis (Wassermen and Faust, 1994), a technique that allows us to create graphs

131

representing the communication dynamics of a virtual community. A closer look at the content of the messages in this activity would certainly be useful, when analysing SRL development in the course, because most of them concern participants’ selfevaluation, where collaborative learning and social skills are identified by the majority as the most important achievements of their learning process.

mean length tutors' threads

metacognitive

Winding-up

Webquests

Case studies

Educational software

Learning theories

ed-tech intro

breaking the ice

16,00 14,00 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00

mean length students' threads

Fig.5: Comparing the average number of messages in student initiated threads and tutor initiated threads

CONCLUSIONS This paper illustrates some preliminary results of a study that is still in progress. The study aims to investigate the potential for SRL skills development provided by VLCs and other training initiatives based on a socio-construtivist learning approach. The analysis carried out within the TELEPEERS project with the TELE-SRL tool indicated, unsurprisingly, that social aspects seem to be the main strength of this kind of environment. Hence a quantitative analysis of the messages exchanged by course participants revealed that the tutors had to adopt a very proactive tutoring style, that student autonomy improved slightly throughout the course, and that it was apparently encouraged by the role-play strategy. Student proactivity did not increase in time, but was again higher in the role-play than in other activities. A comparison between reactivity to tutors and to peers did not show major differences, except for the concluding self-evaluation. There are some limits to the study: the indicators used do not provide an exhaustive picture of the relevant

132

data and will therefore need to be integrated; the quantitative analysis was carried out very roughly and needs a more serious statistical elaboration, while a closer investigation of qualitative aspects concerning the interactions can be carried out through content analsis, to draw conclusions on SRL development in a CSCL environment. In addition, there are some general considerations that should be made regarding the very concept of SRL in collaborative learning environments. Firstly, tutors should be aware that learner control can only be achieved by a gradual process, through scaffolding and fading techniques. Secondly, individual learners in these environments will never reach total control of the learning process because, by definition, they are bound to negotiate it with peers and tutors. As a consequence, the concept of SRL in a learning community is better applied to the community itself, rather than to the individuals. It is therefore no coincidence that the indicators examined in this paper provide information about community reactivity, proactivity, and participation, rather than the behaviour of individual learners . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was carried out within the project TELEPEERS: “Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments at University Level: a Peer Review”, Grant agreement 2003-4710-/001-001 EDU-ELEARN, http://www.lmi.ub.es/telepeers/ REFERENCES Bettoni M. (2005). Communities of Practice as a method for knowledge-oriented cooperation. In this volume. Collins, A.; Brown, J.S. and Newman, S.E.. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 453-494. Chang M.M. (2005). Applying self-regulated learning strategies in a web-based instruction: an investigation of motivation perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18 (3), 217-230. Dabbagh N. and Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting selfregulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3 (1), 40-47. Dettori G.; Giannetti, T. and Persico, D. (2004). An analysis of the SRL potential of TD-SSIS 2004, a

Technology Enhanced Learning Environment based on the communication platform FirstClass. ITD CNR Report n.4/2004, Genoa, Italy. Dettori G.; Giannetti, T. and Persico, D.. (2005a). Analysing SRL in an online collaborative environment: a case study in teacher education. In G: Chiazzese, M. Allegra, A. Chifari and S. Ottaviano (eds.). Methods and Technologies for Learning. WIT Press, Boston, Southampton, 67-74. Dettori G.; Giannetti, T. and Persico, D.. (2005b). CMC environments supporting self-regulated learning. Proceedgins of the. International. Conference m-ICTE 2005, Caceres (E), 7-10 June 2005, 379-383. Garrison R.; Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher education, 2 (2-3), 87-105. Lee J. and Campbell Gibson, C. (2003). Developing selfdirection in an online course through computermediated interaction. American Journal of Distance Learning, 17 (3), 173-187 Lynch R. and Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 5(2), http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/lynch-dembo.html. Midoro V. and Admiral, W. (eds.). (2003). Pioneer Teachers: a key factor in European school nnovation. Menabò, Ortona, Italy. Salovaara H. and Järvelä, S. (2003). Students’ strategic actions in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 267-285. Schlager M. S. and Fusco J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19 (3), 203-220. Van den Boom G.; Paas; F., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. and van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in web-based learning environment: effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behaviour .20, 551-567. Wasserman S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Wenger E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Whipp J.L. and Chiarelli, S. (2004) Self-regulation in a web-based course: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (4), 5-22. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M.Boekaerts, P.Pintrich, &

M.Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Academic Press, 13-39.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY GIULIANA DETTORI completed her studies in Mathematics at the Università di Genova in 1978. Since then, she has been working as a research scientist for the Italian National Research Council. She is currently with the Institute for Educational Technology, in Genova, Italy. Her research interests cover different topics in Educational Technology and Applied Mathematics. She has authored numerous scientific papers, at national and international level, in Education, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Graphics and Geographical Information Systems. She has been in charge of several national and international projects. TANIA GIANNETTI completed her studies in Philosophy in 1997 at the University of Genoa. She joined the Institute for Educational Technology, within the Italian National Research Council, following her interest in ICTs and, in particular, in Educational Technology. Her current focus of research is on SRL in technology-enhanced learning environments, on representations of knowledge for multimedia environments, and on narrative learning environments. She is involved in several European Community projects. DONATELLA PERSICO completed her studies in Mathematics at the University of Genoa in 1981. Since then, she has been working as a researcher at the Institute for Educational Technology of the Italian National Research Council. Her main interests include the theory and applications of Educational Technology, with particular reference to instructional design, e-learning, teacher training and self-regulated learning. She is author of educational material and scientific publications of various kinds, including books, educational software, multimedia material and several research papers concerning aspects of educational technology. She sits on the editorial board of international and national journals on Educational Technology and has been in charge of several national and international projects.

133

DRAGONS PATHWAYS Secundino Correia Innovation Department - CNOTINFOR Chief Innovation Officer Coimbra Portugal E-mail: [email protected] www.cnotinfor.pt ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005 Elsa Regina Lencastre Innovation Department - CNOTINFOR Trainee from Psychology and Education Sciences Faculty Coimbra University Coimbra Portugal E-mail: [email protected] ©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

games programming for young learners up to 8/9 years old.

KEYWORDS Case study, Dragons learning, TELE.

Pathways,

self-regulated CONCEPT LEARNING

OF

SELF-REGULATED

ABSTRACT Self-regulation has been discussed for over two centuries as a way to encourage individuals to become educated on their own. Nowadays there exist several educational resources that make selfregulated learning possible by their potentialities and capacities. This paper intends to verify the capacity that Dragons Pathways evolutionary software possesses like a TELE (Technological Enhanced Learning Environment), in meeting the requirements of SRL (self-regulated learning). To do this we conducted a participation observation, five interviews (from an adaptation of TELESTUDENTS-SRL) and a questionnaire completed by one of the people responsible for the software development. After a qualitative analysis of the data, the Dragons Pathways software seems to meet the requirements of self-regulated learning and we should consider it as a SRL TELE in the field of

134

Historically, the term self-regulated learning became popular in the 1980’s because it emphasised the emerging autonomy and responsibility of people to take charge of their own learning. As a general term, it subsumed research on cognitive strategies, metacognition, and motivation in one coherent construct that emphasised the interplay among these forces. It was regarded as a valuable term because it stressed how the self was the agent in establishing learning goals and tactics, and how each individual’s perceptions of the self and task understanding influenced the quality of learning that ensued. In recent years a great deal of research has focused on a constructivist perspective of self-regulated learning (e.g., Paris and Byrnes, 1989), on social foundations of self-regulated learning (e.g., Pressley, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989a), on developmental changes in self-regulated learning (e.g., Paris and Newman, 1990) and on instructional tactics for promoting selfregulated learning (e.g., Butler and Winne, 1995).

The integrative nature of self-regulated learning stimulated researchers to study broader and more contextualised issues of teaching and learning while also showing the value of self-regulated learning as an educational objective at all grade levels (Paris and Winograd, 2001). Definition of the Concept Self-regulated refers to the degree that individuals are metacognitively, motivationally and behaviourally active participants in their own learning process (Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). People personally initiate and direct their own efforts to acquire knowledge and skill rather than relying on teachers, parents or other agents of instruction. According to recent studies on self-regulated learning, learning is controlled not only by external effects but also by self-regulated elements (Weinert, 1983 in Chung, 2000). According to Snow (1996), Winne and Hadwin (1997), Perry (1997) and Winne and Stockley (1998), self-regulated learning is also a dualistic construct with properties of an aptitude and an event. Dimensions of Self-Regulated Learning Self-regulated learning can help describe the ways that people approach problems, apply strategies, monitor their performance and interpret the outcomes of their efforts. There are four central characteristics of self-regulated learning: awareness of thinking, use of strategies, sustained motivation, and selfevaluation. Part of becoming self-regulated involves awareness of effective thinking and analysis of one’s own learning and thinking habits (metacognition meaning thinking about thinking). Flavell and Brown showed that children from 5 to 16 years of age become increasingly aware of their own personal knowledge states, the characteristics of tasks that influence learning and their own strategies for monitoring learning. Paris and Winograd (1990) summarised these aspects of metacognition as children’s developing competencies for self-appraisal and selfmanagement and discussed how these aspects of knowledge can help direct students’ efforts as they learn. The educational goal is not simply to make children think about their own thinking but, instead, to use metacognitive skills to guide the plans they

make, the strategies they select, and the interpretations of their performance so that awareness leads to effective problem-solving (Paris and Winograd, s/d). This approach is consistent with Bandura (1986) who emphasised that self-regulation involves three interrelated processes: selfobservation, self-evaluation and self-reaction. Understanding these processes and using them deliberately makes metacognitive processes part of self-regulated learning. A second part of self-regulated learning involves a person’s growing repertoire of strategies – for learning, studying, controlling emotions, pursuing goals and so forth. However, the most important is “being strategic” rather than “having” a strategy. It is one thing to know what a strategy is, but quite a different thing to be inclined to use and to modify it as task conditions change, and be able to discuss and to teach it. We can consider three important metacognitive aspects of strategies, often referred to as declarative knowledge (what the strategy is), procedural knowledge (how the strategy operates) and conditional knowledge (when and why a strategy should be applied) (Paris, Lipson, and Wixson, 1983). Knowing these characteristics of strategies can help people to discriminate productive from counterproductive tactics and then to apply appropriate strategies. When learners are strategic, they consider options before choosing tactics to solve problems and then they invest effort in using the strategy. These choices embody self-regulated learning because they are the result of cognitive analyses of alternative routes to problem-solving. The third aspect of self-regulated learning is motivation, because learning requires effort and choices. Self-regulated learning involves motivational decisions about the goal of an activity, the perceived difficulty and value of the task, the self-perceptions of the learner’s ability to accomplish the task and the potential benefit of success or liability of failure. Awareness and reflection can lead to a variety of actions depending on the motivation of the person. Researchers and educators have characterized self-regulated learning as a positive set of attitudes, strategies, and motivations for enhancing thoughtful engagement with tasks. Nevertheless, students can also be self-directed to avoid learning or to minimize challenges. When students act to avoid failure instead of pursue success, attribute their performance to external or uncontrollable forces, use

135

self-handicapping strategies or set inappropriate goals, they are undermining their own learning. These behaviours are self-regulated but may lead to diminished effort, task avoidance and other actions that decrease engagement and learning. Learned helplessness, apathy, and defiance may also be counterproductive motivational responses to learning that can be overcome with better understanding of self-regulated learning.

who do not (Corno, 1989; Zimmerman, 1994; Winne and Stockley, 1998): 1.

2. The fourth aspect is reflection or evaluation concerning task execution, causes of success or failure, emotional insights and assessment. We need a comprehensive model that takes into account the cognitive, motivational/emotional, behavioural and contextual processes involved in self-regulated learning.

3.

THE SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS 4. In general, learners can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, behaviourally and contextually active participants in their own learning process (Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). 5. Characteristics Self-regulation is inherent when learning is guided by goals. Some forms of self-regulated learning are theorized to help people learn more about what they study, to develop and sustain positive motivation and to practice and extend skills for learning (Winne, 1998). Prior works (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman and Schunk 1989) reveal a variety of complexly interacting factors that affect learners’ development and use of tactics that also comprise academically effective forms of self-regulated learning. The number and complexity of these factors increases when students themselves try to bootstrap more productive self-regulated learning forms (Winne, 1998). Students’ goal orientations play a major role in selfregulation. Students who hold a mastery goal orientation aimed at learning and skill acquisition display more adaptive learning strategies, higher intrinsic motivation and a stronger sense of perceived efficacy for learning, compared with students whose primary goals involve such other concerns as ego involvement and work avoidance (Schunk, 1994). Nevertheless, a few other characteristics differentiate people who self-regulate their learning from those

136

The familiarity with and the knowledge of how to use a series of cognitive strategies (like repetition, elaboration and organization), which may help them to attend, to transform, to organize, to elaborate and to recover information; The knowledge of how to plan, control and direct their mental processes toward the achievement of personal goals; The motivational beliefs and adaptive emotions, such as a high sense of academic self-efficacy, the adoption of learning goals, the development of positive emotions towards tasks as well as the capacity to control, modify and adjust them to the requirements of the task and of the specific learning situation; The planning and controlling of time and of effort to be used on tasks and the knowledge on how to create and structure favourable learning environments (finding a suitable place to study or seeking help from teachers and classmates when difficulties appear); The efforts to participate in the control and regulation of academic tasks, classroom climate and structure, to the extent that the context allows it (Montalvo, 2004).

In summary, people who self-regulate their learning “see themselves as agents of their own behaviour: they believe learning is a proactive process, they are self-motivated and they use strategies that enable them to achieve desired academic results” (Montalvo, 2004). Researchers (Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1988 in Zimmerman, 1994) have shown that teachers do not have difficulty in identifying self-regulated students by their attributes. They classify them as self-starters (who display extraordinary persistence on learning tasks), confidents and strategists. They are resourceful in overcoming problems and usually self-reactive to task performance outcomes.

Valuation Self-regulated learning is also seen as a dualistic construct with properties of an aptitude and an event (Winne, 1998).

Viewed as an aptitude, self-regulated learning describes a state of the student that predicts the cognition and motivation that will be involved when the student addresses future instructional activities. It has been measured by students’ reflections on past activities in responses to questionnaires (LASSI – The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory; MSLQ – The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire; CSRL – The Components of SelfRegulated Learning), structured interviews (SRLIS – Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule), teachers’ judgments or comments gathered with a stimulated recall protocol. Like other aptitudes, selfregulated learning varies within individuals over time, within individuals across tasks and across individuals. Viewed as an event, self-regulated learning is a three plus one phase model; it involves three necessary phases and an optional fourth phase: perceiving the task, setting goals, enacting tactics to approach goals and, optionally, adapting tactics. Although this model may imply that self-regulated learning unfolds in sequence from phase one to two and so on, this is probably not always the case. Once self-regulated learning is underway, it is recursive and weakly sequenced. Recursive means that the information generated in a given phase of self-regulated learning may feed into that same phase again. Weakly sequenced means that although self-regulated learning begins with phase one (perceiving the task), once information is generated in any phase, the event may jump phases or recourse to a previous one (Winne, 1998). INTERVENTIONS LEARNING

OF

SELF-REGULATED

Self-regulated learning can be taught to both children and adults (Paris and Winograd s/d). This does not mean it is neither necessary to teach everyone nor necessary to teach the same things to those who are taught. Because self-regulated learning is flexible and adaptive, different kinds of strategies and motivation might be emphasized for different learners. Self-regulation can be taught with explicit instruction, directed reflection and metacognitive discussions. Cognitive research has shown that expertise can emerge in many ways and explicit instruction is not always necessary. However, many children do not gain metacognitive insights or use self-regulated learning effectively without direct

instruction and it seems plausible that many teachers can increase their own metacognitive understanding through explicit instruction. But self-regulation can also be promoted indirectly by modelling and by activities that entail reflective analyses of learning. It can be taught indirectly within classroom activities and tools that evoke reflection and metacognitive understanding (Paris and Winograd s/d). Other forms of promoting self-regulation are by assessing, charting and discussing evidence of personal growth. Self-regulated learning can be promoted through record keeping of goals met, grades received and progress made in behaviour management and learning. Interventions designed to guide students toward academically effective forms of self-regulated learning must acknowledge that “relatively little is currently known about the development or acquisition of self-regulation and what can be done to facilitate its development” (Weinstein, 1996 in Winne, 1998). However, this last researcher and his assistants are optimistic that today’s and the near future’s computing technologies, appropriately coupled with other educational innovations, can increase the efficacy, efficiency and extent of students’ self-regulated learning, agreeing with Salomon and Perkins. Other investigators (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998) suggest the need for a clearer operational meaning of the concept of self-regulated learning so that the investigations become more concrete. Besides, this concept needs to be studied longitudinally in order to understand it better. Not ignoring the value of the traverse and temporary studies, it is necessary, in the same authors’ opinion, to validate some subjects through the advantages of the longitudinal studies. Future research in self-regulated learning may also better interconnect with recent research on learning communities, collaborative learning and pro-active learning contexts. DRAGONS PATHWAYS Dragons Pathways is a Technological Enhanced Learning Environment (TELE) or a playground that allows children to create, play and modify interactive games. It is a piece of software which aims to develop planning and programming skills in the children (starting from the age of 9/10 years old,

137

although without an age limit) through the immediate visual computation of rules encapsulated on objects on the form of pathways.

make decisions and the consequences of their decisions can be seen and experienced immediately on screen. After using the prepared Magic Forest activities, learners are encouraged to modify and change them and ultimately create their own completely new activities. To enable non-readers to do this, Magic Forest uses a simple pictorial icon language. Using this language, young learners can define and change the rules of each object (character) in an activity, and they do not necessarily need to be able to read. Included with the program are a set of stimulating backgrounds and a set of fully animated characters that will allow young learners to create many different kinds of activities.

Figure 1 - Beginning a new game from a model The software intends to stimulate and to develop the creativity and the imagination. It is suitable for use at the school and extra-curricular and/or family context, alone, with peers or with adult coaching. Dragons Pathways is a natural evolution of Magic Forest developed as an outcome of European Playground Project (1998 to 2001). The main challenge of Playground Project was to conceive and develop a "computational playground", in which children between 4 and 8 years old could create games and play with them, creating and changing rules, through several modes of expression: tactile, oral and physical. The "playgrounds" developed under the project consisted of spaces to play with rules and not only by the rules. In this way, it was possible to challenge the children's enthusiasm, their creative potential and their exploring spirit in creating games. It also involved nearly formal cognitive skills, in order to progressively achieve the formal thought, without the need to previously know a symbol’s and convention’s code. Detailed information about Playground Project can be found at http://www.ioe.ac.uk/playground/. The Magic Forest is an ICT based modelling environment developed and designed for children from 4 to 8 years old. It comes with a variety of activities to explore, understand and change. Learners explore an activity and discover what happens. In many of the activities, learners need to

138

In a very simple way it is possible to build icon phrases that define actions and conditions, so that animated objects can move themselves around the screen, or be controlled by the learner(s). There can be a separate set of rules for each animated object. Those rules are defined by tablets, which are placed in papyrus scrolls. There are tablets to define conditions. These must be at the beginning of a papyrus scroll. To complete the rule phrase, it is necessary to choose tablets that define actions. Using control tablets, we can control characters or objects with the direction arrows, the mouse or a joystick. Dragons Pathways assumes the same underlying principles, but is more advanced to better suit older children. With Dragons children may be able to create games and interactive stories using a large amount of characters, objects, scenarios and sounds. By the use of the iconic language developed on a codesign process with the children during the Playground Project and further extended now, all rules of the games are visually set on pathways belonging to each object. Children define objects’ behaviours in a concurrent and parallel way on the form of “when condition, then action 1, action 2, action n”. At any time, children can turn the game on and interact with it, governed by the rules they have settled and computed in parallel real time. The software includes Text to Speech facilities, bringing to life speech dialogues between characters by writing the text scripts. Voice recorded facilities are also embodied in the software.

Guidelines to interview the tutors and the children followed the instruments constructed in the TELEPEERS project (http://www.lmi.ub.es/ telepeers), TELE-SRL and TELESTUDENTS-SRL. This project formed the TACONET network Targeted Cooperative Network on Technology Enhanced Learning Environments that support SelfRegulated Learning (http://www.lmi.ub.es/taconet). After gathering the necessary data to clarify and understand the problem and proposed goals, we proceeded to analyse and interpret the data, constituted by the register of observations, the analysis of the questionnaire and the interviews. Figure 2 - How rules are expressed on Dragon Pathways METHODOLOGY To test Dragons Pathways’ functionality as a TELE, a qualitative research design based on a case study methodology was devised. Qualitative research is a model of scientific research that has as the main goal, not the explanation and description of the phenomena, but its understanding. In agreement with Bogdan and Biklen (1994) qualitative research intends to learn with the people and to understand the phenomena starting from the participants’ perspective, usually going through a small number of cases. A case study comes as a “method of study of a particular case (…) that provides an opportunity to study, in a way more or less deepened, a certain aspect of a problem in little time” (Bell, 1993 in Ramos, 2005). According to Bogdan and Biklen a case study is an empirical investigation that studies a contemporary phenomenon and that consists in a detailed observation of a context, individual or specific event. Subjects and Procedures This study involved one of the Dragons Pathways’ mentors, a collaborator and the five children that tested the software. Three sessions were conducted with the children testing the software. These sessions were video recorded and a participant observer took notes.

Instruments The selection of the instruments was made using qualitative interactive techniques, based on the interaction between the researcher and the participants. These are the most appropriate techniques for a qualitative study of this extent since they present a large flexibility and diversity of information in the collection of data. DATA ANALYSIS Considering the analysis based on the data from the evaluation tool (TELE-SRL), this software challenges the children to work on the task once it is organized in a way that they appreciate the developed work. It offers them the opportunity to establish public and private communication, supplying to them the possibility to negotiate and to discuss with their tutor the form of organizing the work and the results, to work together with their peers, discussing and comparing the final results. Allowing the children to reflect on their problem solving tasks it helps them to stay motivated. On the other hand, it still supplies the children the opportunity to choose among different modules and among different learning paths, raising their interest. It is adapted to reach consistency between the level of the children’s competencies and the level of difficulty of the task, supplying to them the possibility to discover the extent to which they are reaching their learning goals, through the comparison of their actual position with the position that they intend to reach. It supplies formative return, facilitating the maintenance of a positive work attitude and leading to an appropriate faith in their effectiveness. Besides, it still supplies appropriate

139

return on their results and on the volume of accomplished work.

synthesis, voice recording, numbering pages or game levels and menu configuration.

This TELE does not make any content explicitly available. It makes it possible to work with concepts that allow the development of logical-mathematical reasoning, estimating, forecasting and programming competencies.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This TELE naturally supports children’s motivation offering many stimuli like scenarios, characters, sounds and objects with complex behaviours. The children do not have to follow rigid directives, having instead the possibility to create and to develop his/her adventure spirit and creativity. The TELE does not have any explicit control over the evaluation of the children's work, but as everything can be immediately computed, children have immediate feedback through the experimentation and evolution of their games, making their own continuous auto-evaluation and auto-correction of the results. The tutor/professor should play the part of mediator/stimulator, scaffolding the activities. The TELE allows the exploration of existent games, facilitating their modification and offering a set of tools and objects to create completely new ones. These factors are a challenge that motivate their users and contribute to the strength of the TELE as an open environment, promoting interaction and critical thinking among peers and between these and the tutor/teacher. Children easily execute new activities, idealising and evolving from simple to complex and sophisticated games programmed by them. Factors that may represent a weakness of the TELE are the initial blank interface that may constitute a blockade for those who are used to playing with “game-boys” or other video games. Small children may demand more support and scaffolding from adults in order to achieve tasks that are more interesting. The lack of a great diversity of scenarios and characters both for boys’ and girls’ preferences may also be a weakness. The tests with children suggested a lot of improvements and some of them have been introduced in the final version, such as speech

140

The present study had as its main goal to understand whether the software Dragons Pathways accomplishes the requirements to be considered, according to TACONET, a SRL TELE. In the first phase, it intended to deepen the theme of the self-regulated learning through bibliographical research, and collation of interviews, questionnaire and participant observation data. Setting together the information collected in the bibliographical revision with the data obtained and analysed, it is possible to verify a convergence of ideas. In this TELE there exists the possibility to develop activities with other’s support (peers or teachers), through explicit instructions; but there also exists the opportunity to accomplish self-directed activities in order to attain self-goals. In this way it appears to promote self-regulated learning, through activities that require a reflexive analysis of what is being achieved in order to produce a meaningful and pleasant game. The role of the tutor/professor/ parent/peer is just the role of a mediator/stimulator of the activities. On the other hand, in self-regulated learning students personally initiate and direct their own efforts to acquire knowledge and skill. By not having to follow rigid guidelines, this TELE makes it possible to create and to develop the students’ adventurous spirit, as well as his/her creativity. These dimensions provoke in the student the need of wanting to go beyond, increasing their knowledge and capacities. The bibliography states that it is important to be strategic rather than having a strategy. When offering the possibility to choose among different modules and among different paths, this TELE favours the development of different strategies to reach the intended goals. However, it is adapted to reach consistency between the level of the students’ competencies and the level of difficulty of the goals, and keeping them motivated; another fundamental concept of self-regulated learning. The opportunity to think about the activities/games that they are programming and the challenge to

continuously improve the performance of the games and introduce new levels is what maintains a high level of motivation through the process of programming, playing and exchanging the games. REFERENCES American Psychological Association (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington DC. Fifth edition. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bell, J. (1993). Como Realizar um Projecto de Investigação – um guia para a pesquisa em Ciências Sociais e Educação. Colecção Trajectos. Lisboa: Gradiva. Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1994). Investigação Qualitativa em Educação – uma introdução à teoria e aos métodos. Colecção Ciências da Educação. Porto: Porto Editora. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (ed). Advances in Instructional Psychology. Hilldsale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, vol I, 77-165. Butler, D. L. and Winnie, P. H. (1995). Feedback and selfregulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281. Chung, Mi-Kyung (2000). The development of selfregulated learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 1 (1), 55-66. Coastline Community College (2005). Introduction to the Self-Regulated Learning Cycle, in http://vcs.ccc.cccd.edu/crs/star/educ120/intro2SRL.htm #Self. Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: a volitional analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: theory, research and practice. Springer – Verlag: New York, 111-141. Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura and C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural process theories of complex human behavior. The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordoff. Hsiao, W. D. L. (2005). CSCL theories: self-regulated learning/metacognition, in http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories. html#metacog. Montalvo, F. T. and Torres, M. C. G. (2004). Selfregulated learning: current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2004, 2 (1), 1-34. Paris, S. G. and Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic

Achievement: theory, research and practice. Springer – Verlag: New York, 169-200. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y. and Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. Paris, S. G. and Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 87-102. Paris, S. G. and Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101. Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Eds). Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey, 15-51. Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (2001). The Role of SelfRegulated Learning in Contextual Teaching: principles and practices for teacher preparation, in http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/200104/0104parwin.htm#_ftnref1. Perry, N. E. (1997). Young Children Self-Regulated Learning and Context That Support It. Manuscript submitted for publication. Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of selfregulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30, 207–212. Ramos, A. S. (2005). A Literatura para a Infância, na Pedagogia Waldorf. Artigo Científico de Seminário em Formação e Tecnologias Educacionais. Seminary of degree of licenciature presented to Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra. Rosnow, R. L. and Rosnow, M. (1998). Writing Papers in Psychology: a student guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Selfregulation in education: retrospect and prospect. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: issues and educational applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Chapter 13, 305314. Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Conclusion & future directions for academic interventions. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning: from teaching to self-reflective practice. The Guilford Press: New York. Chapter 11, 225-235. Snow, R. E. (1996). Self-regulation as a meta-conation? Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 216-267. Weinert, F. E. (1983). Self-regulated learning as an instructional prerequisite, method and objective. Education, 28, 117-128. Weinstein, C. E. (1996). Self-Regulation: a commentary on directions for future research. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 269-274. Winne, P. H. and Hadwin, A. F. (1997). Studying as selfregulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky and A.

141

C. Graesser (eds). Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 279-306. Winne, P. H. and Stockley, D. B. (1998). Computing technologies as sites for developing self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning: from teaching to selfreflective practice. The Guilford Press: New York. Chapter 6, 106-136. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (3), 329-339. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: theory, research and practice. Springer – Verlag: New York, 1-25. Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic selfregulation: a conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). SelfRegulation of Learning and Performance: issues and educational applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Chapter 1, 3-21. Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23 (4), 614628. Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct Validation of a Strategy Model Student SelfRegulated Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 284-290. Zimmerman, B. J. and Schunk, D. H. (1989). SelfRegulated Learning and Academic Achievement: theory, research and practice. Springer – Verlag: New York.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY SECUNDINO CORREIA Education 1997 - Master in Information Technologies and Systems (Specialization area: Information Technologies applied to Education), by the Sciences and Technologies Faculty of the University of Coimbra, with the thesis about "Integrated Learning Environments" 1988 - Degree in Philosophy by the Letters Faculty of the University of Coimbra 1973 - Degree for teaching in Primary Schools Developments Author of the book "ILE Microworlds" (Micromundos AIA), with the prize from Nónio Séc. XXI programme

142

Author of the book "Information and Communication Technologies in Education" (Tecnologias da Informação e da Comunicação na Educação), with the prize from the Educational Innovation Institute Author, co-author and translator of several pieces of educational software:”Magic Forest”, "Aventuras no mundo das palavras, dos sons e das imagens", "Desafios", "WinLogo", "MegaLogo", "ToonTalk", "Imagina, Cria e Constrói", "Já Está", "Escrita com Símbolos", "InterComm" Several conferences, papers, presentations, seminars and workshops in Congresses, Universities and other institutions in Portugal and abroad, about "ICT in Education" Today Co-ordinator of Cnoti Innovation and Research Lab – Clube ET, co-financed by ADI Professor of "Educational Resources and Technologies", "Integrated Learning Environments Design", "ICT in Special Needs Education", at ESE de Paula Frassinetti - Porto Co-ordinator of the postgraduate course in "ICT and Learning Contexts" at ESE de Paula Frassinetti – Porto Member of the Scientific Committee of EuroLOGO Member of NoE KaleidoScope Credited trainer by the Scientific and Pedagogical Council of Continuous Training in the areas A40 (Informatics), C15 (Educational Technologies – Informatics) and C16 (Educational Technologies – Audiovisuals) Credited trainer by IEFP (Institute for Employment and Training) ELSA REGINA LENCASTRE Last year of the degree of licentiate in Education Sciences from Psychology and Education Sciences Faculty Coimbra University

CLASSROOM CONNECTIVITY IN PROMOTING ALGEBRA I AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Stephen J. Pape School of Teaching and Learning The Ohio State University 333 Arps Hall, 1945 North High Street Columbus, OH 43210 U.S.A. E-mail:[email protected] Additional authors: Karen E. Irving and Douglas T. Owens, The Ohio State University; Louis Abrahamson, Better Education Foundation. © Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS Algebra, classroom contexts, physical science, selfregulated learning, technology. ABSTRACT This interdisciplinary effort, Classroom Connectivity, is focused on teaching and learning of Algebra I and Physical Science at the 7th-10th-grade level. This age is a critical juncture in young people’s lives for promoting academic achievement, fostering greater self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviours, and positive dispositions toward mathematics and science learning. Characteristics of the connected classroom project proposed to foster SRL include formative assessment and classroom discourse especially in relation to the explanations and justifications teachers require for students’ responses; the quality of questions teachers ask given immediate feedback regarding students’ understanding; and teachers’ ability to identify junctures during lessons critical to ongoing student achievement in mathematics and science. This study draws teachers from across the United States and Canada in a randomised cross-over trial, mixed-method analytical approach. The main focus of the study is to examine the impact of connected classroom technology with interactive pedagogy and professional development on SRL that supports greater mathematics and science achievement. Outcomes to be examined include teacher practices and their relation to implementation

of technology; mathematics and science achievement; motivation for learning mathematics and science; SRL behaviours; students’ dispositions toward mathematics and science; classroom discourse processes; and teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and science as well as mathematics and science teaching and learning. This talk focused on the theoretical perspectives of the project and the research design to examine connected classrooms and student outcomes. INTRODUCTION Middle and high school teachers seldom attend to how students make sense of classroom content, and students often have difficulty identifying their strategies (Pape, Bell and Yetkin, 2003). When students are asked to articulate their problem solving or study plans, they often report only a few ineffective tactics (Pape and Wang, 2003). This paper outlines a research study that examines the use of connected classroom technology within Algebra I and Physical Science classrooms. The goal of the study is to support the development of conceptual knowledge, increased achievement, effective use of self-regulated learning (SRL) strategic behaviours, and positive dispositions toward mathematics and science in connected classrooms. The theoretical foundations for the intervention include social cognitive theory (e.g., Zimmerman, 1994, 1998a, 1998b, 2000) and social constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning (e.g., Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989; Diaz,

143

Neal, and Amaya-Williams, 1990; Wertsch and Stone, 1985). The social cognitive theory provides foundational definitions, describes phases of SRL, and delineates the mechanisms to support the development of SRL behaviours in the classroom. Social constructivist perspectives, in particular cognitive apprenticeship teaching models (Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989), help us understand ways in which teachers can structure classrooms to support SRL development. In addition, the rationale for the intervention draws on broadening definitions of mathematics (e.g., NCTM, 2000) and mathematical competence (Kilpatrick, Swafford, and Findell, 2001), the nature of science and scientific inquiry (e.g., National Research Council [NRC], 2000; McComas, 1996, Lederman, 1992) and research related to classroom contexts that support the development of SRL (e.g., Butler, 2002, 2003; Butler and Cartier, 2004; Butler, Elaschuk, and Poole, 2000; Perry, 1998; Perry, Phillips, and Dowler, 2004; Perry and VandeKamp, 2000; Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, and Nordby, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1989, 1992; Verschaffel and DeCorte, 1997; Verscahaffel et al., 1999). Why is self-regulation crucial to contemporary mathematics and science education? Traditional instructional practices often lead students to believe that learning mathematics and science should come easily and without strategic effort. For example, students often develop the conception that mathematical problems ought to be solvable quickly through the straightforward application of algorithms. This supports the belief that problems they are not able to solve within a few minutes are either not solvable or at least not solvable by them (Lampert, 1990; Schoenfeld, 1987, 1988). These students often give up trying to solve a problem within a very short period of time. The importance of actively transforming to-be-learned material is not made explicit for students and is not easily extracted from instruction given the careful alignment of mathematical skills and solutions to assigned “problems” students must solve. The predominant views of mathematics and science as “ways of thinking” or “ways of understanding the world” that requires evidence, explanation, and justification changes what it means to learn and succeed within these domains. New conceptions of proficiency in mathematics education that emphasise conceptual understanding, strategic competence,

144

adaptive reasoning, productive dispositions, and procedural fluency (Kilpatrick et al., 2001) require that teachers attend to their students’ SRL behaviours. In science, student proficiency includes exhibiting curiosity, defining questions, proposing preliminary explanations, planning and conducting investigations, gathering and displaying evidence, developing explanations based on that evidence, considering alternative explanations and communicating findings (NRC, 2000). We have argued elsewhere (Pape and Smith, 2002; Pape et al., 2003) that the development of SRL capacities in young learners is crucial to the implementation of mathematics instruction as described in the NCTM (2000) standards documents. Similarly, science instructional practices based on inquiry methodologies as described in the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000) includes far more than memorisation and recall of large bodies of facts. Social constructivist or reform-minded pedagogies will further develop students’ abilities to regulate their own learning and develop proficiency in mathematics and science. While these goals are widely embraced by mathematics and science educators, methods for supporting the skills essential to be successful in these problem solving and inquiry classrooms are not readily implemented in the classroom. The goal of the present study is to examine the impact of connected classroom technology on the development of these skills that have potential for positively impacting on student learning. Connected classroom technology refers to a networked system of handheld calculators and a computer combined with aggregation and control software specifically designed for interactive teaching. Student response systems are increasing in ease of use as well as commercial availability with more than ten separate US companies developing systems. Remarkably usage, which is estimated to exist in all 50 states in the United States, 10 countries, and 4,000 schools, has grown to current levels from virtually zero in less than three years and continues to accelerate. The present study proposes to examine the use of one system (TI-Navigator™) in middle school or secondary school Algebra I and Physical Science classrooms. Mathematics and science educators today are being challenged to think beyond simple, skills-based conceptions of the domain and to support young learners’ thinking and reasoning. To be successful,

therefore, mathematics and science educators need to develop classroom environments and specific instructional strategies that support not only learning content but also the development of strategic learning behaviours. Thus, this presentation focuses on “the importance and centrality of self-regulation in the context of the prevailing new conception of school mathematics [and science], namely, as a major objective of mathematics [and science] education, on the one hand, and as a crucial characteristic of effective mathematics [and science] learning on the other” (De Corte, Verschaffel and Eynde, 2000, p. 721). In another sense, “self-regulation is both an aptitude for and a potential outcome of schooling” (Randi and Corno, 2000, p. 651). “In general, self-regulation involves learners who proactively direct their behavior or strategies to achieve self-set goals” (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 538). Self-regulated learners are cognitively active in their own learning. According to social cognitive theory, there are three phases of selfregulation: forethought, performance, and selfreflection (Zimmerman, 1994, 1998a, 1998b, 2000). That is, prior to beginning a task (forethought), learners analyse the task to determine the steps needed to accomplish it; while performing a task, they monitor their progress toward understanding; finally during self-reflection, self-regulated learners make judgments of their progress and alter their behaviours according to judgments of progress. SRL development is accomplished through several stages including observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). Classroom teachers and peers can serve as models for strategic behaviour. Next, students begin to imitate the behaviours they witness, which may lead to early attempts to self-control strategic behaviours. During this stage students receive feedback on their strategic efforts, and ultimately gain the ability to adapt these skills to varying conditions (self-regulation). Thus, the stages of SRL development can be facilitated through appropriate structural classroom scaffolding. We believe classroom connectivity technology will support SRL development. SRL strategy use has been related to and predictive of academic achievement and problem-solving success (Pape, 2004; Pape and Wang, 2003; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988, 1990). For example, middle-school children’s efforts to make sense of

mathematical word problems are related to success (Pape, 2003, 2004). These meaning-based approaches to representing and solving mathematical word problems involve analysing and transforming the word problem to form an adequate mathematical representation and providing explanations and justifications for solution steps. Further, students’ perceptions of self-efficacy, their judgments of their capability to do mathematics, are impacted by their strategic efforts and are predictive of strategy use (Pajares and Miller, 1994; Schunk, 1990, 1991; Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons, 1992; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990). Students who exert strategic effort to learn may find success in their strategies. Small successes bolster students’ selfefficacy (Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman et al., 1992), and when students attribute their success to the use of strategies, they are more likely to continue to use these strategies (Borkowski, Weyhing and Carr, 1988; Borkowski, Weyhing and Turner, 1986). Social constructivist perspectives also provide important background knowledge for consideration when conceiving of classroom contexts that support SRL. From this perspective, interaction between learners and more-knowing others is critical to SRL development (Bronson, 2000; Diaz et al., 1990; Wertsch and Stone, 1985). Adults initially mediate and support a child’s efforts to carry out a task such as using a strategy. This initial co-regulation of strategic behaviour eventually diminishes as the learner gradually takes on the responsibility for accomplishing a task. The learner’s ability moves from co-regulation to self-control and then selfregulation (Diaz et al., 1990; McCaslin and Hickey, 2001). Contexts that Support SRL. In the next section of this paper we describe the efforts of a year-long study conducted with a seventh-grade mathematics teacher (Pape et al., 2003) and the results of a review of extant literature that focused on contexts that support SRL development (Pape, 2005). As part of a two-year professional development program for middle-school mathematics teachers, the Teacher-Researcher project, a seventh-grade teacher and the first author met approximately weekly to design classroom instruction focused on strategies and supporting students’ developing sense of agency and skill in learning. Prior to taking a test, students indicated how they would study on a worksheet provided for this purpose; following the test, they reflected on their

145

strategies in relation to the test outcomes. Several times during the year students articulated their strategies in whole-class discussions, and classified their behaviours using 11 literature-based categories of strategies (Pape and Wang, 2003; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988, 1990). The seventh-grade teacher and university researcher felt that individual student and group articulation of strategies resulted in classroom discussion focused on strategic behaviour and supported SRL development. In addition, from analyses of extensive field notes we learned that multiple representations, rich mathematical tasks, classroom discourse focused on strategic behaviour, environmental scaffolding of strategic behaviour, and varying needs for explicitness and support were essential to supporting students’ developing SRL skills. “When thinking is articulated regularly, patterns of thinking develop that are iterative. Thinking cannot be articulated unless students reflect on the problem and the strategies they use to solve it; articulation, in turn increases reflection, which leads to understanding” (Fenema, Sowder, and Carpenter, 1999, p. 188). A review of literature provides additional evidence for similar aspects of classrooms that foster SRL. Within reading and writing activities, Perry and colleagues (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2004; Perry and VandeKamp, 2000; Perry et al., 2002) highlight features of high-SRL classroom contexts that include choice of tasks and how tasks will be accomplished, control of the nature of challenge of tasks, opportunities for student evaluation of self and peers, peer support, and teacher instrumental support (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002). In particular, three highSRL classrooms provided opportunities for students to engage in complex, meaningful activities over multiple writing sessions; to engage in phases of the writing process; to decide what to write, where and with whom; to control challenge by determining how much to write, at what pace, and with what level of support; and to set evaluation criteria, editing and revising their work, and selecting samples for their portfolios. In addition, teachers and peers provided varying support including sharing ideas, resources, strategies, and collaborative editing (Perry, 1998). Perry and colleagues indicated that sensitivity to the level of support required by individual students was critical to classrooms that supported SRL. In these classrooms, researchers found both individual, student-level support for particular tasks as well as

146

whole-class support that shifted as the pupil’s needs changed. These classroom context elements are echoed in Randi and Corno’s (2000) work. Aspects of the classroom environment that support SRL include student choice on assignments, aligning classroom opportunities with students’ skills, and community building through collaborative problem solving tied with group processing to explicitly support students’ group work. Teacher scaffolding through modelling strategic behaviour and fading guidance constitutes these authors’ second area of support. Eventually students must be encouraged to carry out these strategies independently. The last component of the environment that encourages SRL development is the classroom evaluation system. Similar to Perry and colleagues’ work, significant diagnostic performance evaluation including self and peer evaluation against prior criteria is crucial to developing SRL. In addition, as highlighted in Butler’s work (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2003; Butler and Cartier, 2004; Butler et al., 2000), “curriculum-embedded assessments” include “instructional tasks that provide opportunities for the teacher to observe and assess what students can do; tailored to student individual differences and designed to stretch to their full potential through ongoing teacher assessment” (Randi and Corno, 2000, p.663). A common framework for many recent intervention programs is based on the cognitive apprenticeship model (Collins et al., 1989) including “mak[ing] covert thinking (cognitive skills) explicit through modelling and then help[ing] students to acquire them through coaching and scaffolding” (Randy and Corno, 2000, p.654). Thus, many interventions explicitly incorporate heuristics and strategies that are modelled for students. Subsequently, classroom discourse is used to provide instructional support. Both Schoenfeld (1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992) and DeCorte and Verschaffel (Verschaffel and DeCorte, 1997; Verscahaffel et al., 1999) implemented a “Polya-like” heuristic for problem solving and required students to follow similar steps. First, students were asked to represent the problem. This essential step of understanding the problem prior to beginning a solution is too often neglected (Pape, 2003, 2004). Next, students considered possible strategies that might be applied to the problem while devising a plan for solution. This design phase was ongoing in Schoenfeld’s analysis. Through these two

crucial steps (i.e., analysing the task and devising a plan) teachers instructed students to be thoughtful about developing their understanding of the problem and planning a way to solve it. Both heuristics then included several steps related to carrying out the plan, but Schoenfeld’s heuristic went slightly further by asking the students to attempt to transform the problem into a simpler problem. Others have suggested, “modeling, verbal tuition, physical guidance, corrective feedback, social structuring, supervision and monitoring, peer teaching, cooperative learning, and reciprocal teaching” (Zimmerman, 1998b, p.10). Another proposal for supporting students’ efforts to accomplish academic tasks suggested by Butler included these basic plan elements. Her emphasis on the importance of analysing the task prior to determining ways to accomplish it (Butler and Cartier, 2004) is similar to representing a mathematical problem. A crucial aspect of Butler’s Strategic Content Learning and Cleary and Zimmerman’s (2004) Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP) is that students first analysed or engaged in strategies already within their repertoire prior to being supported in developing new strategies beyond their present capacity. An additional component involves having students make attributions for successes to the use of these strategies. When students attribute successes to strategic behaviour and failures to lack of strategic behaviours, they maintain strategy use and in some cases generalise these strategies to other contexts (Borkowski et al., 1986, 1988). This additional component is crucial to changing students’ beliefs about themselves as learners. Students need ample practice in real contexts (Butler, 2002, 2003; Butler and Cartier, 2004; Butler et al., 2000; Schoenfeld, 1989, 1992; Verschaffel and DeCorte, 1997; Verschaffel et al., 1999). Interventions should provide the students an opportunity to apply the strategies they have and attempt to expand their repertoire of strategies gradually until they are using them on their own (Butler, 2002, 2003; Butler and Cartier, 2004; Butler et al., 2000). Through the ongoing implementation of these strategies, students will not only learn new ways to accomplish the learning process but will also take on new dispositions toward learning that include cognitively active stances toward learning.

CLASSROOM CONNECTIVITY RESEARCH PROJECT How might the connected classroom technology impact on development of SRL? In a traditional classroom, student work is assigned, submitted, manually graded, and handed back days after completion. By the time students receive their reviewed papers, they may have forgotten what they were thinking when they did the work, and classroom instruction may have moved on to a new topic. Not only is it difficult to correct a conceptual problem at this stage, but some difficulties evidenced in the work may represent prior problems in understanding. This delayed feedback is problematic especially for science and mathematics where students make daily incremental gains in knowledge. Teachers sometimes try to gather formative assessment data about their students by asking “Does everyone understand this now?” Often they receive little response to this question, which may lead them to assume that everyone understands, or individual students may believe everyone except them understands. Fear of looking foolish provides a powerful incentive for students to remain silent. In addition, critically reviewing student work is incredibly time consuming for teachers. In contrast, in a connected classroom student work is instantly aggregated and available on the teacher’s computer once submitted. The classroom connectivity technology under investigation in this study is the TI NavigatorTM. This technology provides wireless connectivity between the teachers’ computer through a system of hubs to students’ graphing calculators. Student responses to assigned or in-class questions, student-collected data, or teacher-generated activities may be collected from students’ calculators or sent to their calculators. Thus, there are ways for teachers to gain immediate insight into students’ understanding of content knowledge and problem-solving strategies. Displays of these data give powerful clues to what students are doing, thinking, and understanding (Roschelle et al., 2004b), which may lead to adjustment in instruction. Assignments can be smaller but more frequent – for example, requests to answer a question, solve a problem, state a position, or play a learning game (Wilensky and Stroup, 2000; 2002; Stroup 2004). As aggregate class results can be plotted (e.g., on a histogram) and shown to the class, students receive immediate feedback (Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre and Wenk, 1996) in a non-

147

threatening way, and errors or strategies may become objects of discourse for examination (Abrahamson, Davidian and Lippai, 2002). From a perspective of learner-, assessment-, knowledge-, and community-centeredness as defined by the NRC (1999), connected classrooms support each of these centerednesses. Previous teacher reports indicate that classroom connectivity technology supported their efforts to (1) reveal students’ existing conceptions and to extend and make connections with previous knowledge; (2) exert “appropriate” pressure for students to think through issues and to establish and commit to positions; (3) use feedback to reverse and improve the quality of their teaching and students’ learning; (4) monitor class positions and misconceptions; and (5) change the sense of community in their classes (Owens, Demana, Abrahamson, Meagher and Herman, 2004). The theoretical foundation of classroom connectivity draws on specific bodies of literature. When questioning and formative assessment are frequent and involve students actively in reflecting on their knowledge and strategies for learning, and when assessment data are used to inform and adjust instruction, formative assessment has been reported to result in significant student achievement gains (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Fuchs and Fuchs, 1986, Roschelle et al., 2004b). Discourse is central to the mediation of shared meaning. Through public examination of errors and processes that resulted in these errors, teachers and students share their expertise as problem solvers providing examples of reasoning within a domain. “The very act of monitoring one’s own or someone else’s explorations, implementations, or verifications of problems coincides with one of the defining aspects of mathematical reasoning—the justification of ideas” (Artzt and Yaloz-Femia, 1999, p.126). The connected classroom provides anonymous and aggregated student responses for public examination so that students may check their understanding. High contrast displays of thinking are a central feature of connected classrooms and a powerful drive for productive discourse and student learning. Roschelle, and colleagues (2004a, 2004b) point to two likely contrasts: (1) among ideas that are strongly related to the target concept such as misconceptions based on prior knowledge (Smith, diSessa and Roschelle, 1993); and (2) between an individual student’s idea and the ideas of the group. Engaging with cognitive conflict (e.g., making prior

148

knowledge problematic) is known to be an important prerequisite to conceptual change (Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog, 1982; Webb and Palincsar, 1996). A connected classroom provides the mechanism for making explicit both content and strategies, which foster an environment for the development of SRL. As mentioned earlier, educational psychologists have explicated the relationship between self-regulated behaviour and academic achievement (e.g. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1988, 1990) and have postulated a three-phase sequence: forethought, which involves planning; performance, which involves monitoring and controlling behaviours, cognitions, motivations, and emotions; and self-reflection, which involves judgments of progress and changes in behaviour based on feedback. Connected classroom technology and teacher orchestrated classroom discourse provides a context in which these phases may become explicit. Classroom connectivity allows for repeated cycles of the SRL phases. As teachers gather information regarding their students’ knowledge and incorrect responses are revealed, students’ thinking that led to these responses may become an object for discussion in the classroom. Students’ thinking during the forethought and performance stages is revealed. Further, this discussion provides an important opportunity for self-reflection upon strategies and thinking that led to these responses. Thus, these classroom discussions provide the context in which development of SRL is possible. Students gain a window on the strategies of their teachers and peers, which provides important possibilities for observation of others’ strategies and thinking. As strategies iteratively become objects of discourse in the classroom, students begin to imitate these ways of learning and solving problems, which is the emulation phase of development, and they may attempt to use these strategies under their own volition, which is the self-control phase. Finally selfregulation is gained as teachers slowly fade their support for strategic behaviour (Zimmerman, 1994, 2000). Thus, connected classroom technology potentially fosters SRL through immediate formative assessment and the classroom discourse with increasing quality of teachers’ questions that is established as a result of revealing students’ conceptions, misconceptions, and as students are asked to provide explanations and justifications for their mathematical or scientific processes. In addition,

teachers in this context are challenged to identify critical junctures in their lessons that are essential to developing students’ conceptual knowledge before they continue their lessons. Finally, more positive dispositions toward mathematics and science are possible given these instructional strategies.

2. 3.

THE RESEARCH STUDY This four-year intervention research study aims to investigate student outcomes including improved student conceptual development and achievement in mathematics and physical science, SRL skills, and dispositions toward mathematics and science through the pedagogically sound implementation of connected classroom technology. Specifically, the project aims to impact on teacher’s practices by supporting their development of enhanced formative assessment and classroom discourse in a networked classroom. Students will benefit through the development of deep conceptual understanding of Algebra I or Physical Science, improved student achievement, improved self-regulated learning, and more positive dispositions towards mathematics or science. The following research questions are ordered according to the hypothesised sequence of observed effects. 1. How does professional development focused on the use of the TI-Navigator system and related pedagogy affect teachers’ instruction within the connected classroom? a. How do teachers’ formative assessment and discourse practices change in the TINavigator networked Algebra I or Physical Science classroom? b. How does use of the TI-Navigator system support proactive and reactive teacher instructional strategy choices in Algebra I or Physical Science classroom instruction?

Cohort 1

Algebra 1

Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4

Algebra 1 Physical science Physical science

Grant Year 1 Treatment Year 1 (TY1) Control

4.

5.

How does instruction within a connected classroom affect student achievement in Algebra I or Physical Science? How do instructional practices within connected classrooms, especially formative assessment and discourse practices, support the development of SRL behaviours and productive dispositions toward Algebra or Physical Science among participants’ students? What is the relationship between the pedagogy and technology in TI-Navigator connected classrooms? How does the technology supplement or facilitate changing classroom practice? What is the relationship between teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions and effective use of the TI-Navigator system implementation? How do pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge, and beliefs about science influence teachers' implementation of the Navigator system?

Participants. During Year 1 (2005-2006), 120 Algebra I (7th-10th-grade level) teachers have been randomly assigned to treatment (n=60) and control (n=60) groups. During Year 2, Physical Science teachers will be randomly assigned to treatment (n=12) and control (n=12) groups (8th-9th grade level). The research design for this study is a randomised cross-over trial where the control group is exposed to the intervention sequentially (see Table 1 for details). Each year of the study will include around 2,400 to 3,600 student participants. Intervention. The intervention includes a weeklong professional development program focused on pedagogy in the connected classroom and technology skills, online dialogue and support, and follow-up through participation at the Teachers Teaching with Technology Annual Professional Development Conference. 2 TY2

3 TY3

4

TY1 Treatment Y1 Control

TY2 TY2 TY1

TY3 TY3 TY2

Table 1: Research design

149

Research Design and Data Collection. Mixed methodology using both quantitative and qualitative methods will be employed. Teacher measures include: Demographic Survey that requests teacher and class level background information; Technology Use and Professional Development survey; and Teacher Practices Questionnaire. Additional teacher or class level data collection techniques include teacher telephone interviews and webbased questionnaires as well as videotaped classroom technology use and field notes from 15 two-day classroom observations and 5 five-day extended case study site visits. Student measures include researcher-developed Algebra I and Physical Science achievement tests; Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia and McKeachie, 1991); Views of Mathematics and Views of Science student survey; and Student Perceptions of Classroom Practices survey. Data Analyses. Data analyses will include both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Broadly, quantitative analyses will include Hierarchical Linear Modelling to support our examination of differences between treatment and control groups in relation to achievement measures, SRL behaviours, and dispositions toward mathematics and science as an indication of the effectiveness of the intervention. In addition, to investigate the growth in teachers’ ability to use the classroom network technology, longitudinal comparisons across years of the grant will be conducted. Qualitative analyses will provide descriptions of the professional development program and technology use across the sample of participating teachers. In addition, case studies of technology use will provide in-depth descriptions of individual teachers’ and students’ learning in these contexts. These analyses will provide a description of the context in which the quantitative analyses will be situated. SUMMARY The proposed project aims to improve student conceptual development and achievement in Algebra I or Physical Science, SRL, and dispositions toward mathematics or science through the pedagogically sound implementation of connected classroom technology and improved instructional practice. Specifically, the project aims to impact on teachers’ practices by supporting their

150

development of enhanced formative assessment and classroom discourse in a connected classroom. Researchers expect that students will benefit through the development of deep conceptual understanding of Algebra I or Physical Science, improved student achievement, improved selfregulated learning, and more positive dispositions towards science. REFERENCES Artzt, A. F. and Yaloz-Femia, S. (1999). Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem solving. In L. V. Stiff and F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Developing Mathematical Reasoning K12: 1999 yearbook Reston. VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 115-126. Abrahamson, L.A., Davidian, A. and Lippai, A. (2000). Wireless calculator networks: Where they came from, why they work, and where they’re going. Paper Presented at the 13th Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, Atlanta, GA. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. London: King's College London. Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S. and Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53. Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S. and Turner, L. A. (1986). Attributional retraining and the teaching of strategies. Exceptional Children, 53, 130-137. Bronson, M. B. (2000). Overview of theoretical perspectives on self-regulation. In M. B. Bronson (Ed.). Self-Regulation in Early Childhood. New York: Guilford Press, 11-30. Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 170-190. Butler, D. L. (1998a). A strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning by students with learning disabilities. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.). SelfRegulated Learning: From Teaching to SelfReflective Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 160-183. Butler, D. L. (1998b). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A

report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682-697. Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualised instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 81-92. Butler, D. L. (2003). Structuring instruction to promote self-regulated learning by adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 11, 39-60. Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting effective task interpretation as an important work habit: A key to successful teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 17291758. Butler, D. L., Elaschuk, C. L. and Poole, S. (2000). Promoting strategic writing by postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A report of three case studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 196-213. Cleary, T. J. and Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Selfregulation empowerment program: A schoolbased program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550. Collins, A., Brown, J. S. and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 453-494. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L. and Eynde, P. O. (2000). Self-regulation: A characteristic and a goal of mathematics education. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich and M. Ziedner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 687-726. Diaz, R. M., Neal, C. J. and Amaya-Williams, M. (1990). The social origins of self-regulation. In L. Moll (Ed.). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 127-154. Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Mestre, J.P. and Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: a classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3–47. Fennema, E., Sowder, J. and Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Creating classrooms that promote understanding. In E. Fennema and T. A. Romberg (Eds.). Mathemtics Classrooms that

Promote Understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 185-199. Fuchs, L. S. and Fuchs D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. and Findell, B. (2001). Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26 (9), 771-783. McCaslin, M. and Hickey, D. T. (2001). Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., 227-252. McComas, W. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10-16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Research Council (1996). Mathematics and science education around the world: What can we learn from the survey of mathematics and science opportunities (SMSO) and the third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS)? Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience. Washington, DC, National Academy Press. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Owens , D. T., Demana , F., Abrahamson, A. L., Meagher, M. and Herman, M. (2004). Developing Pedagogy for Wireless Handheld Computer Networks and Researching Teacher Professional Development. Washington, DC, Published by ERIC ED479499: 137. Pajares, F. and Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of selfefficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical

151

problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203. Pape, S. J. (2003). Compare word problems: Consistency hypothesis revisited. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 396-421. Pape, S. J. (2004). Middle school children’s problem-solving behaviour: A cognitive analysis from a reading comprehension perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 187-220. Pape, S. J. (2005). Intervention that supports future learning: Developing self-regulated learners. In S. Wagner (Ed.), PRIME: Prompt Intervention in Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading and the Ohio Department of Education, 77-98. Pape, S. J., Bell, C.V. and Yetkin, I. E. (2003). Developing mathematical thinking and selfregulated learning: A teaching experiment in a seventh-grade mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 179202. Pape, S. J. and Smith, C. (2002). Self-regulating mathematics skills. Theory into Practice, 41, 93101. Pape, S. J. and Wang, C. (2003). Middle school children’s strategic behaviour: Classification and relation to academic achievement and mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 31, 419-449. Perry, N.E. (1998). Young children's self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729. Perry, N., Phillips, L. and Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1854-1878. Perry, N. E. and VandeKamp, K. J. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young children’s development of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 821-843. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K.J., Mercer, L.K. and Nordby, C.J. (2002). Investigating teacherstudent interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211227.

152

Randi, J. and Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich and M. Ziedner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 651-685. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R. and Abrahamson, L. (2004a). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. American Educational Research Association 2004 Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R. and Abrahamson, L. (2004b). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61 (5), 50-54. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. New York: Academic Press. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.). Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 189-215. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “welltaught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145-166. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick and L. E. Klopfer (Eds.). Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 83-103. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan, 334-370. Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207231. Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A. and Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163. Webb, N. M. and Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner and R.

Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 841-873. Verschaffel, L. and De Corte, E. (1997). Teaching realistic mathematical modelling in the elementary school: A teaching experiment with fifth graders. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 577-601. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H. and Ratinckx, E. (1999). Learning to solve mathematical application problems: A design experiment with fifth graders. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 195-229. Wertsch, J. V. and Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 162-179. Wilensky, U. and Stroup, W. (2000). Networked gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet architecture. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI. Wilensky, U. and W. M. Stroup (2002). Participatory simulations: Envisioning the networked classroom as a way to support systems learning for all. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.). Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-21. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998a). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A selfregulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73-86. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998b). Developing selffulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), SelfRegulated Learning: From Teaching to SelfReflective Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 1-19. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of

Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 13-39. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676. Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628. Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290. Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and gifedness to selfefficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY STEPHEN PAPE is a faculty member within two sections of the School of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University: (1) Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (MSAT), and (2) Integrated Teaching and Learning (ITL). His doctorate training was in Educational Psychology with a specialization in the Research on Teaching and Learning of Mathematics from CUNY, Graduate School and University Center. He was born in New York City where he also earned a Bachelor of Science from Fordham University in Mathematics and Psychology and a Master of Science in Secondary Mathematics Education from the City University of New York (CUNY), Queens College. He has taught elementary and secondary mathematics at a K-12 private school and middle school mathematics and science at the intermediate school level for the New York City Public Schools. During his graduate studies, he taught psychology courses at CUNY, LaGuardia Community College and education courses at CUNY, Queens College. His research incorporates three areas of study: mathematics, education, and educational psychology. It has examined middle school children’s problem-solving behavior through the lens of cognitive theories of reading comprehension. This understanding of children’s problem-solving

153

behavior serves as a foundation for examining teachers’ classroom behaviors that promote academic achievement and self-regulated learning. He has been PI and co-PI on several training and research grants that sought to support middle school teachers’ efforts to change their teaching practices. He is presently a co-PI on a project funded by the Institutes of Educational Sciences in the United States to examine the impact of Classroom

154

Connectivity systems that hold promise for increasing self-regulated learning capacities and achievement. Thus, his developing line of research brings together my ongoing efforts to understand learning processes with work that investigates reform middle school mathematics teaching practices and classroom contexts that support the development of self-regulated learning.

155

156