Students Designing ICT Support for Collaborative Learning in Practice Tom Nyvang - Department of Communication, Aalborg University, Denmark ( Haakon Tolsby - Department of Communication, Aalborg University Informatics, Østfold College, Norway. Networked Learning 2004

Agenda End user design – the aim of the paper POPP and communities of practice – the context of the study The study – data and interpretation The design and implementation process Conclusions and perspectives

End user design and student initiative Design in practice by students collaborating Democratic design Didactical or instructional demands vs. student driven initiatives What can we learn from student design and adaptation practice?

Case: Human Centered Informatics Faculty of Humanities at Aalborg University Bachelor (3 years) and master level (bachelor + 2 years) education combines communication, organization and ICT studies to provide students with the tools necessary to be critical, but constructive, participants in the evaluation and construction of ICT and new media ICT supplied by the university: , web-pages, shared web-folders, newsgroups ICT chosen by students: Predominantly IGroups, an open-ended design and provides a flexible and customisable environment File-sharing tool, shared web documents, calendars, conference forums, chat functions, SMS (at the time of the study), messenger services, lists, event managing, member managing, photo albums, voting, link lists and a game Project Oriented Project Pedagogy (POPP)

Project Oriented Project Pedagogy Problem Oriented Project Pedagogy (POPP) implemented in all educational programmes since the opening of Aalborg University in 1974  POPP is rooted in the institutional culture Students define the problem and specific learning goals themselves  POPP ensures student ownership to the project Students control and develop their project through collaboration in groups of 2-6 students  POPP forces students to collaborate and coordinate activities. Students take full responsibility for the project The advisor guides in the process and evaluates the students in the final exam  Students need to organize the collaboration with the advisor Students spend 50% of their study time on projects and 50% on lectures or other learning activities  The workload in the projects is heavy, projects normally run over the time span of a semester

POPP and communities of practice Learning: Negotiation of meaning in communities of practice Practice meaning as an experience of everyday life (Wenger, 1998, p. 52) Negotiation of meaning Participation Reification Community is constituted by Mutual engagement, Joint enterprise Shared repertoire

The study – data and interpretation Interviews and study of collaborative environments 24 students (3x6 students, 1x5 students and 1x3 students) 4 teachers Group Size Requirements expressed in tools Construction Activity Student Comments 6 File sharing, document version control, discussion forum, group , calendar. Change of work and collaboration practice and reconstruction of iGroups. ICT should help without creating an extra workload. Prefer to keep advisor out of collaborative space in iGroups, because they feel his presence may restrain their internal communication.

The study – data and interpretation Group Size Requirements expressed in tools Construction Activity Student Comments 3Mail, shared e- mail for external communication. Har siddet hver for s Change of work and collaboration practice. The group was small and could easily keep track of everything without groupware. However the groups emphasizes that the free high speed internet connection at home they received through a research project meant a lot to the collaboration and changed it from earlier projects they had participated in. They found the new practice more collaborative due to better communication and coordination.

The design and implementation process Choice of environment ICT supplied by the university: accounts, space for publication of web pages and shared web folders for project groups Student demand: Better tools for collaboration The students considered possible consequences of introducing a new tool: One more place to find and publish information vs. a more efficient tool for collaboration The students preferred an open ended framework in order not to put any limitations on the project with the collaborative tool (In a dedicated project management tool) one had to start defining a lot of tasks and create a lot of documents before one could even start on the project … but when one starts on a project one does not have many ideas about where one is going.

The design and implementation process Flexibility and reconstruction of the environment The basic structure of IGroups was considered sufficient for a start Reconstruction primarily took place in the file-sharing tool The shared web documents provided an open functionality and were used for creating new workspaces where ideas were generated and exchanged

The design and implementation process Coordination All groups cited coordination as a main reason for the project groups to choose a virtual project environment. Coordination of activities Coordination of activities is not merely a matter of organizing time; it is also a matter of identifying, sharing and managing new and ongoing tasks It demands a certain discipline to maintain coordination of activities Coordination of knowledge construction The shared construction of knowledge in project-based learning only becomes visible for the members through the material that they produce The project groups used the file-sharing tool to upload documents, to comment on each other’s documents and to rearrange the structure of the project. I got more interested in what the others were writing when I could go directly to a document in iGroups, correct it and get immediate feedback on my comments from the owner

Conclusions and perspectives Ongoing reconstruction along with the growth of the project  support of negotiation of meaning through participation and reification Flexible support for coordinating activities, organizing time and identifying, sharing and managing project tasks  the tool has to fit different needs in different phases of the project. Learning creates emergent structures (Wenger, 1998) and can best be supported in an environment where these structures are allowed to grow according to the needs and goals of the learners. IGroups made it possible for the students to create an open and transparent project process  improved conditions for genuine collaboration Aalborg University has implemented ICT that meet (some of) the above requirements, but students are reluctant to use it for POPP support – why? How does the university support student initiative without removing initiative from the students?

This presentation