In the fall of 1999, we started, the Integrated Product Development- Collaborative Engineering ( IPD-CE) project as a first pilot. We experimented with modern communication technology in order to find useful tools for facilitating the cooperative work and the contacts of all the participants. Teams have been formed with engineering students from Lehigh University in the US, the Fontys University in Eindhoven, The Netherlands and from the Otto-von-Guericke University in Magdeburg, Germany. In the fall of 2000 we continued and also cooperated with the Finnish Oulu Polytechnic. It turned out that group cohesion stayed low (students did not meet in real life), and that Internet is not mature enough yet for desktop video conferencing. Chatting and email were in these projects by far the most important communication media. We also found out that the use of a Computer Support for Cooperative Work (CSCW) server is a possibility for information interchange. The server can also be used as an electronic project archive. Points to optimise are: 1. We didn't fully match the complete assignments of the groups; 2. We allowed the groups to divide the work in such parts that those were developed and prototyped almost locally; 3. We haven't guided the fall 2000 teams strong enough along our learning curve and experiences from previous groups. 4. We didn't stick strong enough to the, by the groups developed, protocols for email and chat sessions. 5. We should facilitate video conferencing via V-span during the project to enhance the group performance and commitment.
DOCUMENT
This paper will discuss the process of the MA program ePedagogy / Visual Knowledge Building during the first semester of the academic year 2005 – 2006. This MA program is a joint venture between the Universities of Helsinki, Hamburg and INHOLLAND. This publication will discuss and evaluate the concrete steps (in terms of learning process) during this first semester. In particular the role of the eTutor will get special attention. This publication is based on the principle of action research. Hart & Bond defines action research as “it is a form of reflective inquiry which enables practitioners to better realise such qualities in their practice. The tests for good action research are very pragmatic ones. Does it improve the professional quality of the transactions between practitioners and clients/colleagues? This action research approach is being realised upon three main sources. As an eTutor and member of the staff of this program I weekly filled in an “Evaluation Log” in which the following questions are centralized: 1. What happened (this week) 2. Significant experience 3. Reflection 4. Actions Secondly I used a little survey which was being used by the staff to evaluate the first semester. All the three Universities filled in a form with the following questions concerning the education and organisation: Education 1. What do you consider most hindering in your teaching? 2. What do you consider most beneficial in your teaching? 3. What kind of teaching methods do you prefer in this program? 4. Do you think the course offers are attractive for the target group? 5. How do you evaluate student’s engagements and motivation in your courses? 6. What can / should be improved in terms of collaborative learning activities and processes? Organisation 1. In what specific context do you spot organisational constraints? 2. Does your organisation recognise and support the MA program? 3. What is your short-, mid- and long term vision on this program? Thirdly an important source for this action research approach was the International Seminar which was hold in the middle of February 2006. In this seminar the changes based on the questions of the questionnaire were discussed and implemented. The theoretical framework in this publication is based on the dissertation of Karel Kreijns (Sociable CSCL Environments). In this dissertation he discussed the collaborative cognitiveand epistemic performance in a CSCLE. The social presence theory takes a central position in this dissertation. In this paper the pitfalls and barriers concerning a sociable CSCLE are being discussed and evaluated. This paper describes, the interventions the staff took, in order to improve the educational context of the program. From this perspective we looked very carefully to the barriers and pitfalls in our Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). We found evidence for the fact that a good CSCLE consists at least a good balance between Content, Community and Pedagogy. In the program we emphasised our focus (too much) on content and (too) little on community and pedagogy. The community was poor because of the fact that we used three content learning systems, which didn’t stimulate the group processes. Pedagogy was too much based on individual eTutor behaviour. In January 2006, after the courses were ended, the Universities organised a little survey. In this survey was shown that we have to some interventions to improve the learning process. At the International Seminar in February 2006 eTutors and students discussed the problems. The following interventions are being considered and implemented: 1. The use of three Virtual Learning Environments should be decreased. Especially the INHOLLAND / Blackboard system doesn’t reflect the open source philosophy. Besides this the accessibility of this system is not very easy for foreign students 2. The collaborative aspect should be increased, by emphasising the interdisciplinaryand international co-operation. The formation of international subgroups is implemented.
DOCUMENT
Video kan in allerlei vormen de leeromgeving verrijken en daarmee van toegevoegde waarde zijn in een leerproces. Het gebruik van video kan voordelen hebben voor de student en voor jou als docent, mits je over de inzet van video goed hebt nagedacht. Het lectoraat Teaching, Learning & Technology doet onderzoek naar effectieve didactische inzet van video.
DOCUMENT
