learning in an active collaborative space. end-version

8/9/2019 Learning in an Active Collaborative Space. End-Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/learning-in-an-active-collaborative-space-end-version 1/17

Learning in an active,collaborative space

Beat Döbeli HoneggerUniversity of Teacher Education Central Switzerland

Michele P. Notari

Pädagogische Hochschule Bern

School of Teacher Education, University of Applied Sciences

Beat Döbeli Honegger

University of Teacher Education Central Switzerland

Keywords: informal learning, information overload, communication-request overload, Moore’s law,Computer-mediated communication (CMC), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL),

Personal Information Manager (PIM), Personal Communication Manager (PCM)

ABSTRACTBased on the implications of technological progress and socioconstructivist learning theory, trends are

being developed for tools to promote learning in the information society of the 21st century. The future

promises a massive increase in information and its ubiquitous availability, along with an increase in

computer-mediated communication. It is particularly important to understand that the communication

requests placed on the individual and the range of available communication channels will increase in

coming years. Tools must therefore be conceptualized to manage the communication and information glut

of the future in an “intelligent” way permitting a collaborative way of learning. Looking ahead, lifelong,

rather informal and problem-based learning could become significantly more important than formal

learning. The characteristics of wikis will be presented as a possible representative example and explored

based on the above criteria. The chapter concludes with prognoses on the nature of ICT-supportedlearning in coming years.

“The current search for new educational funnels must bereversed into the search for their institutional inverse:

educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each oneto transform each moment of his living into one of learning,

sharing, and caring.” ( Illich, 1970, p. 2 ).

1. INTRODUCTION

In this section a number of prognoses are presented concerning the future characteristics of ICT-

supported learning tools based on current trends towards an information society. The discussion will

address technological developments as well as their technological and social consequences while also the

exploring the competences required for living in an information society. After describing a possibleconception of learning and showing a didactic method that can be derived from it, some characteristics

that learning tools may possess in the future will be inferred.



The universal coding of data in binary format is leading to the convergence of previously distinct tools

and media (Negroponte 1995): the computer, for example, combines the typewriter, adding machine, and

file cabinet in one device, while the internet unites the traditional media of the newspaper, radio, and

television in a new medium. Therefore Kay and Goldberg call the computer a metamedium (Kay &

Goldberg, 1977).

There are four possibilities as to how new digital tools and media can impact existing tools and media:

Extinction: The new digital tools and media replace existing tools and media. Digital

photography, for example, has largely replaced analog photography.

Convergence: ICT combines previously distinct tools and media in a new, unified format.

Coexistence: The new possibilities offered by ICT are used in tandem with existing tools and

media.

Evolution: While new tools and media are typically used at first as an imitation of existing tools

and media, with time new and previously unknown forms of use can develop.

To the present day the computer remains a visible emblem of the trend towards an increasingly

information-based society. Yet as early as 1991, Marc Weiser was using the term ubiquitous computing to prophesize a future in which computers would become an omnipresent but hidden feature of our environment, as they would be integrated in everyday items (Weiser 1991). The future envisioned by

Weiser is already becoming a reality: A modern passenger car boasts more computing power than the first

desktop computer, yet no one would view their car as a computer on wheels. State-of-the-art cellular

telephones also have massive data processing and storage capacity, but are not perceived as computers in

a standard sense. The majority of experts also see a trend in the direction of mobile computing. In a

survey of 578 experts, 77% agreed that the mobile phone is the primary connection tool for most people

in the world (Anderson & Rainie 2008).

The computer scientist Klaus Haefner postulated in 1982 that the increasing availability of information

and communication technologies would lead to ever-greater automation. For economic reasons,

everything that can be automated will be automated (Haefner 1982). This viewpoint – originallyformulated in the early 1980s – is still shared by experts such as Thomas Friedman (Friedman 2005).

2.3 The effects of technological development on professional and private lifeThe developments described above are leading to a situation in which all of the world’s information is

increasingly available at any time, from any place. In addition, individuals can communicate through

digital channels with increasing ease, and automation is on the rise. Our professional and private lives are

impacted tremendously by these trends.

The resulting challenges can be described under the rubric of more, faster, and greater complexity:

More: With the increasing availability of information and options for digital communication, the

individual is faced by the latent danger of an information and communication-request overload. Faster: The availability of information at all times and places as well as the increasing automation

of processes are causing developments to move at an accelerated pace, as less time is required tocomplete tasks. The free time thus attained is used to develop new processes.

Greater complexity: The newly developed processes are often more complex as existing ones, as

existing data and processes form the basis for new ones. This makes complex processes easier to

manage and attracts users.



Figure 3. Potentials and threats of technological change

2.4 Challenges for the individualAs a result the above, the individual is confronted by new challenges. The ubiquitous availability of

digital information and communications poses the threat of an information and communication-request

overload. To manage this threat, information and communication competences are required. The

accelerated rate of change requires lifelong learning and the proper handling of new and unknown

problems. To thrive in an information society, the individual thus needs the ability to see things from

multiple perspectives and to retain an open mind.

Haefner and Friedman both advance the view that it is fruitless to resist increasing automation. Rather, it

is necessary to concentrate on the non-automatable. Haefner envisions two such occupational groups: The

first group consists of the autonomes, who complete their work without the use of ICT. The second group

consists of the Unberechenbaren (“non-computables”), who, with the help of ICT, fulfill complex jobs

that rely heavily on communication and cannot be automated (Haefner 1992, p. 192) Friedman has

formulated a similar concept and describes this second occupational group as the “untouchables”(Friedman 2005).

Figure 4. Challenges for learning

3. NECESSARY COMPETENCES FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY OF THE 21ST

CENTURY

Globalisation will increase diversity and interconnection within the world. Individuals need to master

changing technologies and to make sense of large amounts of available information. In these contexts, the

competences the individuals need to meet their goals have become more complex, requiring more than

the mastery of certain narrowly defined skills (Rychen & Salganik 2001).

According to Weinert, a competence is not reducible to cognitive skills, but instead also contains social,

emotional, motivational, and behavioral components (Weinert 2001). The OECD project "Defining and

Selecting Key Competencies (DeSeCo)" examined which key competencies would be essential in the

future. Three categories of competencies were identified by the study: dealing with socially

heterogeneous groups; autonomous action and creativity; and the interactive use of media and tools(Rychen & Salganik 2001).

In pedagogy, the concept of competence goes back to the competence-model of Klafki (2000). Euler

(2006) proposed a possible way to operationalize Klafki’s model in the form of a matrix of competences.

Table 1 shows this matrix filled in with the concepts proposed in Figure 5.



Figure 5. Required competences

A short description of some terms may help understanding the importance of the different competences:

Self-competence is a term described by Susan Harter (1982) referring to perceived ability in subject areas

as a whole. This makes the definition very similar to self-concept, a term associated with Rosenberg(1965), Shavelson et al. (1976), and Marsh (1990). However, while self-concept also addresses students’

beliefs about academic difficulties and student affect, self-competence refers only to their perceptionsrelated to success. The term ‘social competence’ or ‘social competences’ refer to the social, emotional

and cognitive skills and behaviors that persons need for successful social adaptation (Fiedler, 2003). Open

mindedness has been pointed out by several researchers as one of the most likely characteristics

associated with successful cross-cultural adjustment (Caligiuri, Jacobs, & Farr 2000, Van Oudenhoven,

Van der Zee, & Van Kooten 2001, Yamazaki & Kayes 2004)

Dimensions of

action / Areas of competence

Knowledge Skills Attitudes

Subjectcompetence

Informationcompetences

Learning to learn;

Informationcompetences

Open mindedness

Socialcompetences

Social

competences;Communicative

competences

Social

competences;Communicative

competences

Open mindedness;

Social competences;Communicative

competences

Self-competence Learning to learn Open mindedness

Table 1. Organization of proposed competencies from the concept map(Fig. 1. and 5.) in Euler’s matrix of competences (2006)

4. A CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNING Nowadays, learning is described, defined, and interpreted in very different ways. In the following passage

a short overview of one of many concepts of learning is presented. We have chosen a ‘concept-mix‘ we

suppose to be relevant for the evolving characteristics of future learning tools. Of course many other

understandings of contemporary learning concepts and theories exist.

We start from the idea that learning is a social and active process. We then describe a motivational

learning strategy and provide an overview regarding different types of learning. From these types of

learning, we point out two learning methods (active, collaborative learning) and a didactic concept

(problem based learning). The acquisition of competences in a world of increasing complexity and the

fast-pace of change, is a lifelong learning process. Since formal learning occurs mostly in childhood andyoung adulthood, the role of informal learning has grown in significance. Information technologies also

offer supplemental possibilities for informal education during childhood and young adulthood (Sefton-

Green 2004).

4.1 Learning as active, constructive and social process



Using the theoretical work of Lev Vygotsky, an authority on socioconstructive learning theory and Albert

Bandura, representing the behaviourist movement, learners activity and the importance of social

interaction to learning processes are discussed:

The social cognitive theory explains how people acquire and maintain certain behavioral patterns, while

also providing the basis for intervention strategies (Bandura 1997). It emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. Evaluating behavioral

change depends on the factors environment, people, and their behavior.Vygotsky's theory of social cognitive development is complementary to Bandura's social learning theory.

Its major thematic thrust is that “social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of

cognition” (Kearsley 1994). Vygotsky focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural

context in which they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford, 1996). According to Vygotsky,

humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech and writing, to mediate their social

environments (Crawford, 1996). Vygotsky’s theory promotes learning settings where learners play an

active role in learning. The role of learning manager (teacher) and learner are therefore shifted, as the

teacher should not transmit instructions but rather collaborate with the learners in order to facilitate

meaning construction in learners (Crawford, 1996).

The learning act is described above as an active, social and constructive process. In contemporary and in

future learning scenarios the social interactions are intended to happen directly (face to face) or mediated by technology. Not only the interaction can be enhanced or sustained by technology but also the

construction or co-construction of knowledge and learners activity. Mechanisms enhancing social

interaction might be represented by communication and collaboration tools. Tools permitting and

facilitating editing and sharing of meanings enhance (co-) construction of knowledge. Self determinationtheory and personal motivation may help to understand and enhance learners activity.

4.2 Self-determination and personal motivationInformal learning requires a high level of intrinsic motivation. The self-determination theory of Deci and

Ryan describes three psychological needs that motivate one to engage in this behavior, namely, the need

for competence, need for autonomy, and the need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

Need for competence: refers to the need to actively experience oneself as competent in

controlling the environment (Deci & Ryan 2002).

Need for autonomy (or self-determination): refers to the need to participate in determining one’s

own behavior. It includes the need to experience one’s actions as result of autonomous choice

(Deci & Ryan 2002).

Need for relatedness: refers to need to care for and be related to others. It includes the need toexperience authentic relatedness from others and to experience satisfaction in participation and

involvement with the social world (Deci & Ryan 2002).

The described needs underpin the importance of the predictions of the future tools: relatedness refers to

the importance of being involved within a social environment. Learning in a social environment is a

collaborative process, and the need for competence relates to the importance of being up to date with the

changing world and induces active lifelong learning activities. The need for autonomy refers toindependence from formal (learning) frameworks. Autonomy and environment control also enhances

learners motivation and self determination which has an impact on his behavior / his learning activity.

4.3 More than formal learningThe necessity of lifelong learning has the consequence that a one-time educational program in school and

college is no longer sufficient. Instead, continuous learning outside institutions is also necessary. For this

reason, a distinction is drawn between two different types of learning:



"Formal learning is accomplished in school, courses, classrooms, and workshops. It's official,

it's usually scheduled, and it teaches a curriculum. Most of the time, it's top-down: learners are

evaluated and graded on mastering material someone else deems important. Those who havegood memories or test well receive gold stars and privileged placement. Graduates receive

diplomas, degrees, and certificates." (Cross 2006, p. 16)

"Informal learning: It can happen intentionally or inadvertently. No one takes attendance, for

there are no classes. No one assigns grades, for success in life and work is the measure of its

effectiveness. No one graduates, because learning never ends. Examples are learning through

observing, trial-and-error, calling the help line, asking a neighbor, traveling to a new place,

reading a magazine, conversing with others, taking part in a group, composing a story, reflecting

on the day's events, burning your finger on a hot stove, awakening with an inspiration, raising a

child, visiting a museum, or pursuing a hobby." (Cross 2006, p.16)

The new technologies affect both formal and informal learning. Due to the acceleration of change (see

Figure 1) the “half-life of knowledge” — i.e. its validity in terms of being up-to-date and accurate —

decreases. To keep abreast of developments, lifelong learning is therefore indispensable. Formal

education (i.e. formal learning) normally stops at the age of 20-25. Because of the necessity of lifelong

learning and rising life expectancy, informal learning will increase in importance.

4.4 Collaborative learningThe first findings concerning factors that enhance collaborative learning evolved from the works of Piaget

(1926) and Vygotsky (1978), who contended that learning occurs more effectively through interpersonal

interactions in a cooperative rather than competitive context. Compared to individual learning, research

on traditional face-to-face collaborative learning has revealed numerous benefits: better performance,

better motivation, higher test scores and achievement, the development of high-level thinking skills, as

well as higher student satisfaction, etc. (Dansereau 1983, Slavin 1987; Sharon 1990). More recent

research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has confirmed these benefits and has

shown that they can be enhanced even further through adequate technological support (see e.g. Alavi

1994, Hiltz 1995, Huynh 1999, Suthers 2006, Hoppe et al. 2007). While these are important and very

encouraging results, a deeper understanding of the “inside” of the collaborative learning process is still

missing.

4.5 Problem-based learning (PBL) as an example for authentic learning situationsProblem Based Learning (PBL) is a student-centered didactical concept to promote active learning while

learners investigate authentic problems (David 2009). According to MacDonald and Isaacs (2001): “The

characteristic that distinguishes PBL (..) is that the problem comes before the knowledge (in the broadest

sense) needed to solve or resolve it.” (p. 317) Some key principles of a problem-based curriculum (basedon Engel 1991 & 1992) are:

Active learning: Students take control of their own learning, pose and answer their own

questions.

Integrated learning: Students do not study different disciplines or sub-disciplines separately, donot view knowledge, understanding, and skills as distinct elements but rather as integrated; they

put the problem into the focus and make every attempt to link the classroom and the real world of

practice.

Cumulative learning: No topic or problem is studied to the depth of the final learning outcome in

a single block; rather topics are revisited in progressively greater depth.



Learning for understanding: For students the processes of inquiry are more important than the

facts delivered; knowledge must be tested by application, feedback is central and reflection is an

integral part of the learning process.

There is a general agreement that problem-based learning provides an environment rich in potential for

the development of a range of skills. Among the skills usually identified are: Problem-solving skills;

skills in posing useful questions; thinking skills; teamwork skills; communication skills; timemanagement skills; research and information handling skills; and computing skills.

Informal, problem-based, active, constructive, collaborative learning in authentic learning situations may

indicate characteristics of emerging learning scenarios (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Properties of learning situations

4.6 The role of communication in an active, collaborative learning environmentCollaboration implies an interaction between the collaborating persons and “collaborative learning” is not

always effective (Dillenbourg 1999). Its effects depend on the richness and intensity of interactionsengaged in by group members while collaborating (Dillenbourg et al. 1996). Based on common

theoretical backgrounds, collaborative learning takes place when learners get involved in knowledge-

productive interactions such as argumentation, explanation, and mutual regulation (Dillenbourg 2008).

The “knowledge-productive interactions” take place whenever the involved persons communicate to each

other. Some communicative actions lead to explanation, some to argumentation, and some to mutual

regulation of the collaborating group. The most open definition of communicative action given is that it is

action in which “the actors seek to reach an understanding about the action situation and their plans of

action in order to coordinate their actions by way of agreement. … (It is) a type of interaction that is

coordinated through speech acts and does not coincide with them." (Habermas 1981, p. 101).

Communicative action is based on an analysis of the social use of language oriented to reaching common

understanding when action is coordinated by the validity claims offered in speech acts (Habermas 1981)

We will now turn to computer-mediated human-human communication like e-mail, chat, instant

messaging, newsgroups, forums, tweets etc. Computer-mediated communication helps bridging spatial,social, and temporal distances and permits the tracking of past acts of communication.

Asynchronous communication gives the opportunity to rethink and correct the content of a message

before it is sent and so promoting reflective learning (Hiltz and Goldman (2005). Computer-mediated

communication (CMC) has become a part of everyday life. Research suggests that CMC is not inert as a

social force, but that it can cause many changes in the way people communicate with one another,

influencing communication patterns and social networks (see e.g. Fulk & Collins-Jarvis 2001). Rice &

Gattiker (2001) state that CMC limits the level of synchronicity when interacting, which may cause a

reduction of interactivity.

Figure 7: Communication request explosion requires communication competences

What features might we expect of the next generation of learning tools? As mentioned, ever-greater

demands will be placed on the individual to engage in acts of communication in the future (see Figure 7).



As a result, CMC tools might evolve to resemble face-to-face communication, including all its stimuli. It

may also be that CMC tools merge all of the advantages of CMC with the advantages of face-to-face

communication. Communication tools of the future will also presumably be better at managing large

numbers of communication requests. Such tools may provide for the intelligent selection of relevant

communication requests. To tailor such tools, further research is necessary on communication needs (seeself-determination theory: Deci & Ryan 2002; see section above) as well as on the communication

patterns of learners in active, collaborative learning environments (Notari 2008), has described factorsinfluencing computer-mediated written communication; research on communication needs and

communication patterns is ongoing).

5. CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE LEARNING TOOLSAfter elucidating some underlying principles from learning theory and describing models that appear

applicable from our perspective, we can begin to formulate an overview of requirements placed on the

learning tools of the future (see Figure 8).

An initial, perhaps banal and purely pragmatic requirement that we neither dealt with in theory nor as part

of a model, but that seems nevertheless to be quite essential is the reliability and usability of the learning

tool. Along with steady improvements in computer hardware and applications there has also been a

concomitant increase in complexity, which potentially leads to the increased instability of learning tools.

In view of the latent dangers of information overload, the implementation of learning tools will become

ever more important in the management of information, which could be transformed by a personal

information manager (PIM) of the future with the following requirements: intelligent filtering, prioritization, and visualization of information, as well as the ability to link associations to existing

information and an intelligent storage system for later retrieval. New concepts for solving problems raised

by the flood of new information already exist in rudimentary fashion: statistical methods are increasingly

available to make information management more logical, such as self-learning spam filters, and user-

generated taxonomies (folksonomies).

Figure 8: Required functions and properties of future learning tools

Not only the quantity of information is increasing, but also, in similar fashion, the volume of

communication requests directed at the individual is rising. In the modern world, we are bombarded by

communication requests from a wide range of channels, including telephone, mail, VOIP, wall posts at

social networking sites, and micro-blogging comments. The escalating frequency of requests from an

ever-increasing variety of communication channels requires a new form of communication management.

Today, there are already services available that merge different communication channels. This helps raise

efficiency by reducing the number of channels: the same quantity of communication may no longer be

experienced as a flood of communication, because each communication channel no longer has to be

checked individually. Adequate, active engagement in communication is an additional help for managing

the flood of communication requests. Today, this kind of active “communication agent” already exists inthe form of intelligent-email absence announcements. Some agents, for example, are able to limit

announcing the absence of the message recipient to one occasion per message sender. Obviously, an

additional aspect of communication management includes enhanced learning tool features such as

filtering, prioritization, visualization, association and the integrated storage of new data.



A reliable learning tool must enable a high level of collaboration, and must make collaboration easier. We

will speak in more depth about collaboration as a characteristic of learning tools with reference to wikis in

the next section. As additional requisite properties we would postulate flexibility and organizational

independence. Flexibility consists of actions that do not depend on time or place, and in the ability to use

the same tool to tackle different problems in different ways. Organizational independence must be promoted in order to facilitate informal learning, which is becoming of such paramount importance to

lifelong learning. Flexibility and organizational independence are also important characteristics of wikitools, which will be described in the following section.

6. WIKI AS A REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLEIn order to substantiate the theoretical considerations we focused, we will look at a tool that is currently

available and used for learning purposes both in formal and informal settings. Our goal is to examinewhich of the projected requirements the selected tool satisfies.

Because of the fast pace of technical developments, tools will develop and change. Therefore the

properties of a tool, but not the tool itself are relevant in the following discussion!

We have chosen wiki as example because it is well known, has a long and documented history of educational use (Guzdial 1999, Guzdial et al. 2000, Guzdial et al. 2001, Leuf & Cunningham 2001,

Guzdial & Rick 2006, Schwartz et al. 2004, Bruns & Humphreys 2005, Forte & Bruckman 2006,

Schaffert et al. 2006, Richardson 2006, Konieczny 2007, Parker & Chao 2007), and because several properties of wikis can be found in other tools like weblogs, Google Docs, sketchpad etc. There even

exists a book called “Wikinomics” ( Tapscott & Williams 2007), which tries to explain developments in

economy and society with properties and the philosophy behind wikis.

As wiki is only a representative for a group of already existing of new and innovative tools, we will only

provide one example of wikis in education. Much more and extended descriptions can be found in the

literature cited above.

6.1 Potentials of wikisA wiki is the simplest form of content management system, and were invented by Ward Cunningham in

1995 (Leuf 2001). It didn't take long until their potential for education was discovered (Guzdial 1999). A

wiki may be defined as follows: A wiki is a web server with version control on the Internet, where

everybody can create, change, and link web pages without additional tools and without HTML knowledge(Döbeli Honegger 2007).

Using this definition, we can describe some of the potentials of wikis (Döbeli Honegger 2007):

Create: creating content activates and motivates learners, two important prerequisites for learning

Change: Wikis ease the modification of content (like all computer-based editors). This allows

more revisions of a text which fosters re-reading and re-thinking the text and therefore can

enhance the learning effect.

Link: Wikis allow links between different parts of a text (like all hypertext systems). This

requires that learners read and understand the parts they want to link and find fitting relationships.

This enhances the discussion about the topic. Everybody: Wikis ease collaborative content creation and therefore ease working in interest-

groups.

Revision control: The integrated revision control of wikis not only lowers the danger and damage

of vandalism. The revision control can also be used to look at the creation process by the teacher

and the students. This can foster reflection about working and learning strategies (so called

history pages).



On the internet: As wikis can be hosted on a server on the internet, schools don't have to install

hardware in their own buildings and the wiki can be accessed from everywhere

Without additional tools: As wikis only need a web browser as a tool, there is no need for

software installation on the learners’ computers. This lowers the barriers for using wikis as a

learning tool.

6.2 Wikis and the needs of future learnersIn the following we will examine which of the required characteristics of future learning tools are already

available in today’s wikis. Table 2 shows a comparison between the rudimentary properties of existing

wikis and the required properties of future learning tools.

Required properties of futuretools

Properties of existing Wikis

Institutional independence wiki architecture is open and allows institutionalindependence

Supporting auto-reflection version control and discussion pages supportauto-reflection

Flexible Lack of predefined structures fosters flexible

use

Collaborative wiki architecture is designed for collaboration

Personal information management Is only supported to a limited extent by wikis at

present

Personal communication

management

Is hardly supported at all by wikis at present

Table 2: Requirements placed on future tools

The openness of wikis reflects the requirement for institution-independent tools. Unlike other groupware

tools or learning management systems, wikis do not try to reproduce organizational structures. In

addition, little about the architecture of the tool would stand in the way of broad uses across multiple

organizations. The requirement for auto-reflection is supported by wikis in a number of respects. In wikis,

revision control enables the documentation of the development process and thereby enables historical

reflection. In a similar fashion, discussion pages on certain wiki engines promote meta-reflection on the

part of the authors, as an explicit place is provided for such levels. The ‘lack of predefined structures’

may rise questions about effectiveness of the tool for active collaborative learning purposes. Following

Jadin and Batinic (2006) students working with structured tools like a forum or a weblog worked more

effectively than people using a wiki. The results of Jadin and Batinic relate to a formal university learning

unit where the wiki was used for the first time. Tools used in the future might consider this fact and offer ‘intelligent’ structuring possibilities following specific learners needs or users might learn how to cope

with the freedom of unstructuredness.

Wikis are rightly considered the most flexible content management systems, because they impose only

the most minimal structure and leave the rest to the users. Wikis also fulfill the requirement for collaborative tools to a considerable degree, as Wikis were designed from the beginning to be multi-user

systems. Correspondingly, it has been a fundamental goal of Wikis to promote and simplify the process of



collaborative work. The situation with respect to personal information management is more ambiguous.

On the one hand, wikis could certainly be used for this purpose, but offer very little automation toward

this end. Current research in the area of semantic wikis and the visualization of wikis (see, for example,

Schaffert et.al. 2006, Stickel, Ebner & Holzinger 2008), could ameliorate this deficit in the near future.

Wikis offer hardly any practical support for personal communication management. In this respect, it isimportant to recall that no single tool is likely to be able to meet all requirements placed on future

learning tools.

6.3 Example: Collaborative authoring of Wikipedia articles as a learning processThe previous theoretical considerations can now be illustrated by the exercise of collectively composing a

Wikipedia article. The creation of a Wikipedia article can be conceptualized as a problem-oriented

collaborative learning situation (Lawler 2006). The authors of a Wikipedia article can learn somethingthemselves, even if they originally approach the situation with the idea of documenting something already

known to them. On the one hand, the process of writing can itself lead to a deeper level of understanding,

because implicit knowledge must thereby be made explicit. In particular, however, the collaboration and

criticism of other authors can lead to the “perturbation” of one’s own understanding and, as a result, to alearning process (Lawler 2006).

Writing a Wikipedia article can relate to formal and also informal learning. Learners can have theassignment to create or revise a Wikipedia article in a formal learning setting (Konieczny 2007). It is also

possible that something is learned in the course of writing an article in an informal context. Finally, there

are also Wikipedia authors who deliberately write articles in the hope of learning something about the

topic involved (Forte, Bruckman 2007).

Revision control in Wikipedia permits an author to follow the evolution of the articles. With articles that

have multiple authors, established modifications may be rescinded from time to time following

consultation with the original authors.

Communication between Wikipedia authors most often takes place within the confines of Wikipedia

itself, since for every article there also exists an associated discussion page. Within this discussion site,

individual comments and viewpoints of the authors are debated. An enormous learning potential can beattributed to this process of discussion and debate (see the section on Collaborative learning). Even when

individual authors do not have the impression that they have learned from creating or modifying their

articles, in the process of discussion one’s own perspective is necessarily juxtaposed with other

viewpoints. Ideally, the confrontation leads to compromise and the article will be adapted accordingly.

This adaptation of texts may lead to a transformation of the mental model held by all participants.

According to Piaget, this would constitute an accommodation in response to a discordant perturbation

caused by a different perspective (Piaget 1937).

Over time, a Wikipedia article is linked to a number of related articles. This process of linking is in and of

itself a learning process: an existing concept (content and meaning of a concept or facts relating to an

article) is connected to another similar and already established concept. In addition, linking may lead to

perturbations and related discussions that ultimately lead to a learning process.

A paper which has been often cited as of late, Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with

history flow visualizations, by Viégas et al. (2004), quite clearly visualizes the never-ending,

collaborative, generative process of creating Wikipedia articles described above, and, at the same time, is

an example of a needed tool for the future, one that eases the individual’s management of the challenges posed by a flood of information.

7. CONCLUSION



Due to the rising complexity of problems in the future and the increasing capacity of the technical tools

available, the importance of communication and collaboration will rise and informal learning will become

more important. Instruction-based approaches will decrease and constructivist methods like PBL will

become more popular. The tools of the future will render many repetitive work processes obsolete. They

will also help us manage complex problem-solving activities, while easing collaborative andcommunicative tasks.

Competences that allow us to manage information- and communication-based environments will become

more important considering the rising tide of information and communication requests we will be forced

to manage Tools sustaining information- and communication management in different learning settings

should optimize the following properties: First of all collaboration and flexibility are crucial due to the

complexities of upcoming problems to solve. We also predict the importance of institutional

independence due to the increasing importance of informal learning. Such informal problem solving

activities also call for tools improving auto reflection mechanisms.

In the dynamic and interdependent world in which we live, learning and communication capabilities are

becoming as crucial as knowledge. A main goal of institutional design should be to increase the learning

and communication capabilities of the system and its constituents.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly,

18(2), 159–174.

Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2008). The Ff uture of Internet III. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved May 1, 2009, 1. 2009, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf.pdf

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bruns, A.;, & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment,. In The

M/Cyclopedia Project ., WikiSym 2005,. New York: ACM Press.

Caligiuri, P. M., Jacobs, R. R., & Farr, J. L. (2000). The Attitudinal andBehavioralBehavioural Openness Scale: Scale development and constructvalidation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 27-46.

Crawford, K. (1996). Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information era .

Educational Studies in Mathematics., (31), 43-62.

Cross, J. (2006). Informal Learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and

performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

David, T., Patel, L., Burdett, K., & Rangachari, P. (2009),. Problem- based learning in medicine: A

practical guide for students & teachers: A Practical Guide for Students and Teachers. London

:Royal Society of Medicine Press.

Dansereau, D.F. (1983). Cooperative learning: Impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills (Report

No.341). Abilene, TX: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

http://www.lavoisier.fr/fr/livres/detail.asp?texte=530683&action=new&select=auteur








Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.)., (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:

University of Rochester Press.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg

( (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford, UK :Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative

learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards aninterdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, UK : Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts in computer-supported

collaborative learning., International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol.3, Number( 1).

Döbeli Honegger, B. (2007). Wiki und die starken Potenziale: Unterrichten mit Wikis als virtuellen

Wandtafeln. In Web 2.0 - Internet Interaktiv , J(J ournal Computer und Unterricht ) (pp. 39-

41). Friedrich. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from.

http://beat.doebe.li/publications/2007-doebeli-honegger-wiki-und-die-starken-potenziale.pdf

Engel, C. E. (1991). Not just a method but a way of learning,. iIn D. Boud D and& G. Feletti, G(Eds.), The Challenge of Problem Based Learning . London: Kogan Page.

Engel, C. E. (1992). Problem-based learning. British Journal of Hospital Medicine,. 48., 325-329.

Euler, D., Hasanbegovic, J., Kerres, M. Seufert, S. (2006). Handbuch der Kompetenzentwicklung für E- Learning Innovationen. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Fiedler, D. (2003). Soziale Kompetenz - Ein unvollständiger Begriff. Verhaltenstherapie und psychosoziale Praxis, 35, 87- – 95.

Forte, A.;, & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the Cclassroom. In Proceedings of the

International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from

http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanFromWikipedia.pdf

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the globalized world in the twenty-first

century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organizational

gatherings. In L.L. Putnam & F.M. Jablins (Eds.), New handbook of organizational

communication (2nd ed. ), ( pp. 624-703). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guzdial, M. (1999). Teacher and student authoring on the Web for shifting agency.

Retrieved May 01, 2009., from http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/papers/aera99/default.html

Guzdial, M.;, Kehoe, C.;, Realff, M., &; Morley, T. (2000). A catalog of CoWeb uses.

Retrieved May 1, 2009, from. http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/squeakers/coweb-catalog.pdf .

Guzdial, M.,; Rick, J.,; & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention. Journal of the Learning Sciences, Volume 10 Number( 3) July 2001.



Guzdial, M., &; Rick, J. (2006). Situating CoWeb. International Journal of Computer- Supported

Collaborative Learning, 1(1).

Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action. London: Beacon Press.

Haefner, K. (1982). Die neue Bildungskrise. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.

Hiltz, S.R. (1995). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. New

JerseyYork : Ablex Publishing Corp.

Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2005). What are asynchronous learning networks? In Hiltz, S. R., &

Goldman, R. (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 3–18).

Hoppe, H. U., Ogata, H., & Soller, H. (Eds.). (2007). The role of technology in CSCL: studies in

technology enhanced collaborative learning . New York: Springer.

Huynh, M.Q. (1999). A critical study of computer-supported collaborative learning . Unpublished PhD,

SUNY Binghamton, . New York : SUNY.

Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society . New York: Harper and Row.

Jadin, T., &; Batinic, B. (2006, May 23-24). Social Skills durch Social Software. In Interdisziplinäre Fachtagung zu Bildungs- und Arbeitstechnologien im Semantic Web, am 23. und 24. Mai 2006 in

Salzburg.

Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.hotel-virgil.at/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/jadintrack_1-

3.pdf

Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. In Computer 10(3):, 31-41.

Kearsley, G. (1994). Social learning theory (A. Bandura).

Retrieved May 1 , 2009, from http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bandura.html .

Klafki,W. (2000). Kritisch-konstruktive Pädagogik. Herkunft und Zukunft. In Eierdanz, Jürgen / Kremer,

Armin (Hrsg.): Weder erwartet noch gewollt – Kritische Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Zeit des kalten Krieges,. Baltmannsweiler , Germany 2000, (ppS. 152-

178).

Konieczny, Piotr P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool. International Journal of Instructional Technology And Distance Learning, 2007, Nr. 1. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from.

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_07/article02.htm

Lawler, C. (2006). Wikipedia as a learning community: content, conflict and the 'common good'. In B.

Lutterbeck, Matthias M. Bärwolff, & R. A. Gehring (Eeds.)., Open Source Jahrbuch 2006 - Zwischen

Softwareentwicklung und Gesellschaftsmodell . Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media. Retrieved May 1,

2009, from.

http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/articles/pdfs/osjb2006-06-04-en-lawler.pdf



Leuf, B.;, & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley..

MacDonald, D., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Developing a professional identity through problem-based

learning. Teaching Education., 12, 315-333.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The mMarsh/sShavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623-636.

Moore, G. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics., 38 , Number (8).

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf , New York .

Notari, M. P., & Minder, S. (2008). Electronic messaging in collaborative e-learningenvironments. A method to assess two key factors of communication quality: HCI and language.

In Ed-Media- Proceeding of World Conference on Educational Media, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-Media), (( pp. 1098-1103).

Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1985). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge UniversityPress.

OECD. (2007). Participative Web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. :

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development . Retrieved January 30, 2009, from

http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9307031E.PDF .

Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, (pp 57-72).

Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of a child . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du réel chez l'enfant. Neuchatel, Switzerland: Delacheaux.

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rice, R.E., & Gattiker, U.E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F.M. Jablin & L.L.

Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L.H. (2001). Defining and Selection Key Competencies. Toronto, Canada:Hogrefe & Huber Publishing.

Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., and& Schaffert, S. (2006 June 11-14).

Learning with Semantic Wikis . In First Workshop “SemWiki2006 - From Wiki to Semantics”, co-located

with the 3rd Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), First Workshop SemWiki2006 - FromWiki to Semantics , Budva, Montenegro, 11th - 14th June, 2006.



Schwartz, L. et al. (2004, April). Educational Wikis – features and selection criteria. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (April - 2004). Retrieved May 6, 2009,

from.http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/163/692

Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outsidoutside school.

VAC Performin g Arts and Media College., Futurelab Series, Report Report 7 . Retrieved April 26, 2009,

from. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/22/PDF/Sefton-Green_2004.pdf

Sharon, S. (Eed.). (1990) Cooperative Ll earning: Theory and Rr esearch. New York: Praege.

Shavelson, R. G., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46 , 407-441.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative Ll earning: Student Tt eams., Washington, DC: National Educational

Association.

Stickel, S., Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2008). Useful oblivion versus information overload in e-learningexamples in the context of wiki systems. Journal of Computing and Information Technology , - CIT 16 ,2008, (4), 271–277.

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda

for CSCL . International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning ., 3(1), 3 , 315-

337. (1), 315-337.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2007). Wikinomics , : How mass collaboration changes everything . New

York: Portfolio Hardcover.

Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Kooten, M. (2001). Successful

adaptation strategies according expatriates. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 25, 467-482.

Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors

with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of SIGCHI , Vienna, Austria ( pages pp. 575--582),

Vienna, Austria, 2004. New York: ACM Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA:, Harvard University Press.

Weinert, F. E. (2001). Leistungsmessung in Schulen – Eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit. In:

Leistungsmessung in Schulen. Weinheim und Basel, Deutschland: Beltz.

Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, .65(3), 94-104.

Yamazaki, Y., and & Kayes, D. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-culturallearning: A review and integration of competencies for successful expatriateadaptation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 362-379.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/120055/?p=6d039a35f86344438ae04da5adcb95c1&pi=0

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m06n47771841/?p=6d039a35f86344438ae04da5adcb95c1&pi=0


http://www.springerlink.com/content/120055/?p=6d039a35f86344438ae04da5adcb95c1&pi=0



learning in an active collaborative space. end-version

Documents