CONTRIBUTION TO SYMPOSIUM ON:
TITLE OF PAPER: A
Survey of Technologies Supporting Virtual Project Work
AUTHORS: Håkon
Tolsby, Tom Nyvang, Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld
INSTITUTION: Aalborg
University; Dept. of Communication; Kroghstraede 3; DK-9220 Aalborg Oest;
Denmark
SESSION TYPE: Individual
research paper
NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTACT PERSON:
Håkon Tolsby,
M.Sci.
Dept.
of Communication; Aalborg University; Kroghstraede 3;
DK-9220
Aalborg Oest; Denmark
TELEPHONE: (+45)
9635 9086
EMAIL: hakont@hum.auc.dk
NUMBER OF WORDS: 529
FIVE KEY WORDS: survey,
evaluation, project work, community of practice,
Håkon
Tolsby, M.Sci. (hakont@hum.auc.dk)
Dept. of
Communication; Aalborg University; Kroghstraede 3;
DK-9220
Aalborg Oest; Denmark; Tel: (+45) 9635 9086; Fax: (+45) 9815 9434
Tom
Nyvang, M.A. (nyvang@iti.auc.dk)
Dept. of
Communication; Aalborg University; Kroghstraede 3;
DK-9220
Aalborg Oest; Denmark; Tel: (+45) 9635 8080; Fax: (+45) 9815 9434
Lone
Dirckinck-Holmfeld (lone@hum.auc.dk)
Dept. of
Communication; Center for IT-Innovation;
Aalborg
University, Kroghstraede 3; DK-9220 Aalborg Oest, Denmark;
Phone:
(+45) 9635 9020, Fax: (+45) 9815 9434
Technologies constructed with the purpose of
supporting virtual learning environments are not neutral. They are reflecting a
certain understanding of communication and a certain understanding of learning,
which is represented and conserved in the functionality of the system and in
the interface design. However, this underlying pedagogy is rarely explicitly
defined.
The purpose of this paper is to define a methodical
grounding that can be used when evaluating technological solutions that can
support problem oriented project work (POPP) (Illeris,
1981; Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 1990). The problem oriented project
work is a student driven process. The problem is defined and formulated by the
students in collaboration, and they are in control of the process negotiating
and defining what to be learned. The challenge is to design environments and
choose between technologies where these processes can develop.
A survey of learning technologies can have
different approaches and different aims.
One approach can be functional motivated and
consist of a technical specification of functions that must be included in a
good design. While analyzing technologies that are supporting communities of
practice, Etienne Wenger (2001) puts forward a set of technical functions that
is used as a basis when evaluating several computer systems. The problem with
this kind of specification is that it gives a technical and one-dimensional
understanding of a virtual community of practice (Wenger, 1998), ignoring that
community of practice is a pluralistic concept with several expressions.
Another approach is to base the survey on a
pedagogical or learning theoretical mapping.
Dr Tom Reeves (1997) has described what he calls fourteen pedagogical
dimensions of computer-based education (CBE). The universal dimensions are used
to evaluate CBE and to do comparative evaluations. But universal dimensions
will only exceptionally correspond with the specific aspects of different
educational systems and different pedagogies. They become too general and will
have limited value when evaluating technological solutions for project work.
This paper is therefore based on a third approach
where the focus is on a concrete learning strategy, project work, and where the
survey is based on the different processes and activities involved in project
work. In order to be adequate, a survey of learning environments must express
something about how different technologies can support different learning
processes.
The evaluation of project work is based on the
theories of community of practice (Wenger, 1998), and the understanding
of meaning as negotiated in a practice. The negotiating of meaning is an
intricate process. It is not limited to linguistic behavior. It also includes
our social non-verbal interactions and relations. Wenger explains the
negotiation of meaning as involving two constituent processes: participation and reification. These two processes exist in duality, affecting each
other and being the source of development to each other.
There are not many systems explicitly oriented to
virtual project work. Neither is there only one design that can support project
work. This paper is evaluating a branch of different systems, FirstClass,
Virtual U, Lotus Learning Space, Quick Place, Blackboard and Igroup, discussing
how they can support negotiation of meaning within project work.
Experiences of using the different systems and
several examples are collected at Aalborg University, which offers an extensive
online education based on problem oriented project pedagogy.
References:
Dirckinck-Holmfeld,
L (1990): Kommunikation på trods og på
tværs. Projektpædagogik og datamatkonferencer ii fjernundervisning,
Picnic-news no. 9, Aalborg University
Illeris,
K. (1981): Modkvalificeringens pædagogik, Unge Pædagoger, Denmark.
Reeves
Tom. (1997): Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer Based Education.
http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/CP/reeves.htm
Wenger
Etienne. (2001): Supporting communities of practice, a survey of community-oriented
technologies. Version 1.3
Wenger
Etienne. (1998): Communities of practice. Cambridge university press.