VONET ICT for Development

1
VO_at_NET ICT for Development
www.voanet.dk
Investigating archetypes of use and refining the
understanding of PBL-processes - Experiences from
the VO_at_NET project
Thomas Ryberg E-learning Lab, Department of
Communication Aalborg University. E-mail
ryberg_at_hum.aau.dk E-learning lab www.ell.aau.dk
This work is published under a Creative Commons
license Attribution-ShareAlike
2.5http//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
2
Outline

• Short on the VO_at_NET-project
• Archetypes of use derived from 30 courses in
  VO_at_NET
• Discussion of PBL experiences derived from the
  VO_at_NET project the need to work with a more
  flexible understanding of the Aalborg model

3
VO_at_NET a part of a larger constellation

• U-NEXUS (DUCED)
• Copenhagen Business School (CBS)
• Aalborg University (AAU)
• Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
• The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts- School of
  Architecture (RDA)
• Roskilde University (RUC)
• SACUDE-IUA
• University of Botswana (UB)
• University of Cape Town (UCT)
• University of the Western Cape (UWC)
• University of Witwatersrand (WITS)
• University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN)
• MUCED-IUA
• Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
• Universiti Malaya (UM)
• Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
• TUCED-IUA
• Chiang Mai University (CMU)

LUCED Linked University Consortia for
Environment and Development - Industry and
Urban Areas
4
Close VO_at_NET collaboration partners

• Malaysia (MUCED)
• Universiti Malaya (UM)
• Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia (UKM)
• Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
• Thailand (TUCED)
• Chulalongkorn University
• Mahidol University
• Prince of Songkla University
• Chiang Mai University
• Denmark (Parts of the artist formerly known as
  DUCED)
• E-learning lab Aalborg University
• Environment and Resources Tecnical University
  of Denmark
• Spain
• University of Barcelona

5
Scope and aim of the VO_at_NET-project

• To strengthen electronic interconnectivity
  between the consortium universities' existing
  network, through the establishment of a virtual
  network. Thereby, enhancing network building,
  joint course development, communication and
  information exchange for higher education. 
• This objective was divided 4 sub-objectives or
  component groups
• Establishment of institutional and administrative
  framework to ensure the sustainability of the
  virtual network and reinforce the existing
  network creating (DTU)
• To establish a conceptual pedagogic framework to
  identify key educational and cultural approaches
  for a successful implementation of a virtual
  network (AAU)
• To design and implement an open-access Web-based
  Education and Networking service (WEN) to enhance
  the interconnectivity of the existing network
  (DTU)
• To test the virtual network through development
  of educational curricula, the design of online
  courses and running of those courses (MUCED,
  TUCED, DUCED)

6
What were the outcomes

• MU, CMU and PSU
• Each produced one course
• CU, MUCED
• Have produced a number of courses (MUCED 23),
  (CU, 14)
• Different types of courses and outcomes
• On-campus courses, where the courses serve as a
  supplement to the class-room teaching
• Off-Campus courses where there are no physical
  meetings
• Some courses focused more on combining content
  and activities, whereas others have focused more
  on content (repositories) in a
  pedagogical/organisational perspective there is
  both a breadth and a depth.
• Some have implemented Moodle as an institutional
  infrastructure, thus focusing not on one course
  but have made space for several courses to be
  implemented at the institutions

7
Four basic modes of delivery
8
Archetypes of use

• (Institutional Infrastructures) cross-type
  pedagogical use
• Pedagogical modes or archetypes
• Content delivery Main function is organization
  and publication of teaching material
• Conferencing and Communication Main function is
  dialogues in asynchronous (text) media or through
  synchronous chats
• Group work and Collaboration Main aim is
  coordination of group activities. The purpose of
  the activities can either be production oriented
  or just socially motivated

9
Institutional Infrastructures
10
Institutional Infrastructures
11
Content delivery
12
Content delivery

• Content vs. activity
• More focus on providing content to the students
  e.g. Flash animations, notes, texts and less on
  designing pedagogical activities

13
Conferencing and communication
14
Conferencing and communication

• Discussion and communication
• More focus on the interaction between students
  and teachers focus on creating pedagogical
  online activities e.g. Discussions or other
  shared tasks

15
Group work and Collaboration
16
Group work and Collaboration

• Group work, collaboration and mutual problem
  solving
• Focus on case-work, PBL group work between
  students on different tasks or longer lasting
  case studies or projects

17
The archetypes of use

• Are not mutually exclusive! They are metaphors of
  the most dominant use a course seldom rely only
  on content, but difference in whether the
  activities are online or in the class room
• Cant be directly connected with values on
  pedagogical change e.g. Content delivery courses
  in VO_at_NET completely changed classroom
  interactions
• Activity vs. Content a basic distinction also
  expressed in differences between e.g. Learning
  Objects and LAMS Learning Activity Management
  System
• Which metaphor is the most suitable depends on
  the context and conditions in which the course is
  embedded what is the pedagogical purpose of
  bringing in a VLE?

18
PBL-POPP - theoretically

• Some differences historically between the
  Aalborg Model of POPP/PBL and other
  interpretations
• The focus is not on the usual PBL approach
  where a problem is defined by the tutor and given
  to the learner as their starting point for PBL.
  In this traditional model, students acquire
  knowledge and skills through staged sequences of
  problems presented in context, together with
  associated learning materials and support from
  teachers . The kind of PBL examined in this
  paper occurs in an open, adult learning context
  where learners, who are already professional
  people, work in small distributed e-learning
  groups and negotiate amongst themselves the focus
  of the problem (McConnel 2002)

19
PBL/POPP-processes

• Rounding up the usual suspects PBL-POPP The
  Aalborg Model
• 50 Course - 50 project
• Long-term (semester)4 months!
• Students own and define the problem to work with
• Decide methods, the-ory, empirial invest.
• Solution open ended
• An institutional pedagogy not easily applicable
  in short-term or single courses

20
Some differences between PBL Aalborg Model
POPP/PBL

• Aalborg Model
• Problem formulation and problem setting (enquiry)
• Exemplary and interdisciplinary
• Participants control
• Project based
• Action learning
• Long time collaboration -1/2 year

• Other PBL interpretations
• Problem solving
• Disciplinary
• Teacher / curriculum control
• Individual / project
• Task driven
• Ad hoc

21
The problem of problems!

• It is difficult to apply the Aalborg model
  directly to a course e.g. In VO_at_NET there was a
  12 weeks fully online training course for
  professionals on a specific method (Green
  Productivity), which the students had to learn
  through case work.
• Different from Aalborg model in the sense that
  case and method was chosen else students could
  have picked another, similar method or theory
  still we would argue that we could call it
  adapted PBL
• There is a need for us at AAU (and others) to
  work with conceptualisations of the model to make
  it fit other constellations and other needs
  e.g. shorter term, more curriculum oriented
  environments, single course
• Especially because the Aalborg model is NOT a
  course model it is an institutional pedagogy
  that pervades all levels. Adopting the full-scale
  Aalborg model is a major organisational change

22
Basic distinctions
23
A conceptualisation of PBL

• PBL can be conceptualised as three central
  dimensions or processes that are stretched
  between teacher and participant control
• Problem who defines and re-formulate?
• Work Process who chooses theory, methods and
  ways of working?
• Solution who owns the solution?

24
Conclusions

• One can imagine different more flexible
  constructions of PBL
• Problem can be given by teachers, but the work
  process be decided by participants
• Problem can be open but the working processes and
  methods can be fixed
• Allows for variable and more flexible
  constructions of PBL-processes
• These dimensions might be useful in practical
  course construction and in the theoretical
  discussions of what constitutes POPP/PBL

25
Further readings D

• VO_at_NET Project component 2 report
• Available from http//www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id
  304
• Journal Article
• Ryberg, T., Koottatep, S., Pengchai, P.,
  Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2006). Conditions for
  productive learning in networked learning
  environments a case study from the VOANET
  project. In Studies in Continuing Education -
  Special Issue on Advances in Adult E-Learning
  Issue 2. Ed. David McConnell. (to appear in
  2006).