Four Components of 21st Century Learning

Four Components of 21st Century Learning Applying 'Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework'

on a Course on Educational Technology

University of Helsinki

Institute of Behavioural Sciences

Department of Teacher Education

Pedagogical Studies of Andragogy

Pedagogical Study

Educational Sciences

October 2012

Esko Lius, [email protected]

Advisor: Riitta Jyrhämä

Tiedekunta - Fakultet - Faculty Käyttäytymistieteellinen

Laitos - Institution - Department Opettajankoulutuslaitos

Tekijä - Författare - Author Esko Lius Työn nimi - Arbetets titel - Title Four Components of 21st Century Learning: Applying 'Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework' on a Course on Educational Technology Oppiaine - Läroämne - Subject Kasvatustiede Työn laji/ Ohjaaja - Arbetets art/Handledare Level/Instructor Seminaaritutkielma / Riitta Jyrhämä

Aika - Datum - Month and year October 2012

Sivumäärä - Sidoantal - Number of pages 32 p. + 4 appendix p.

Tiivistelmä - Referat - Abstract There are many educational models and theories that aim to clear the way for teachers to apply tech-nology in learning settings. However, not many of them provide pragmatic tools and guidance on how these models should be implemented in practice. As the Learning Solutions team that I work in was to arrange a new course called "Edutech bootcamp" for teacher trainees at the time of finding a research subject for this study, I felt it fitting to apply a pedagogical model and to evaluate how it would help us in planning and analysing the course. I ended up using the pedagogical infrastructure framework developed by Minna Lakkala in her dissertation. I decided to study the framework itself: How practical and comprehensive would this model be in planning the course? What is my opinion of Lakkala's model compared to other similar models like TPACK and Learning by Design? This study is design-based research: pragmatic and mixing various strategies based on the situation at hand. After comparing the three models mentioned above and after deciding to apply pedagogical infrastructure framework, I used it as a design tool in planning the course. I divided the planning into four basic components described in Lakkala's model: technical, social, epistemological and cognitive. After the course I and the other facilitators evaluated the course according to the four components. I sent the students a questionnaire about the course, based on the framework components. Having ana-lysed all responses I categorized the feedback in a table form provided by Lakkala's framework, in order to find out the shortcomings and suggestions for improvement. Finally, I reviewed the usability and usefulness of the framework in the light of our own course experiences. The pedagogical infrastructure framework is a useful all-around tool that pays attention to all the essential spheres of a socio-constructionist learning process. The less a teacher has experience the more useful the framework is in the course planning. In our case it had a minor effect on our plan-ning. It made us to pay more attention to social and epistemological components, though. The framework was more consequential in evaluating the course. Structuring the facilitators' observations and students' feedback by the four components helped us to spot the shortcomings and to get sugges-tions for concrete improvements. The pedagogical infrastructure framework is particularly useful in pinpointing the areas in need of improvement, like the cognitive component in this case of Edutech bootcamp. All in all, the teacher's experience and didactic competence are more essential factors for a successful course than choosing the right model or framework. Avainsanat - Nyckelord Käytäntöyhteisöt, Opettajankoulutus, Oppimisteknologia, Oppimisympäristöt, Pedagogiikka 2.0, Sosiokonstruktivistinen oppimiskäsitys, Tiedonrakentelu, Yhteistoiminnallinen oppiminen Keywords Collaborative Learning, Community of Practice, Design Research, Educational Technology, Knowledge Building Community, Knowledge Creation, Learning Environments, Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework, Pedagogy 2.0, Social Learning, Socio-Constructivist Learning Theory, Socio-Cultural Paradigm, Teacher Training, Technology-Enhanced Learning, 21st Century Learning sfd Säilytyspaikka - Förvaringsställe - Where deposited Muita tietoja - Övriga uppgifter - Additional information

Sisällys

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2

1.1 The setting ............................................................................................ 3

2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT ........................................................................... 6

2.1 Theoretical framework .......................................................................... 8

2.2 Methodology ....................................................................................... 13

3 THE PEDAGOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK OF

THE EDUTECH BOOTCAMP .................................................................... 15

3.1 The technical component of the Edutech bootcamp ........................... 17

3.2 The social component of the Edutech bootcamp ................................ 20

3.3 The epistemological component of the Edutech bootcamp ................ 22

3.4 The cognitive component of the Edutech bootcamp ........................... 23

4 EVALUATING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PEDAGOGICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK ......................................................... 25

5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 31

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 33

TABLES

Table 1. Main design features and shortcomings of the pedagogical

infrastructure framework of the Edutech bootcamp ................................... 15

FIGURES

Figure 1. The TPACK model. Source: www.tpack.org ........................................ 9

Figure 2. Eight knowledge processes of Learning by Design ........................... 11

2

1 Introduction

Teachers are having a busy time linking the domains of technology and peda-

gogy when designing successful settings for learning in the 21st century world.

Many are "digital immigrants" which means that they (or: we) didn't grow up with

digital gadgets, and those who didn't encounter digital culture until as an adult,

may never get completely rid of the "digital immigrant accent", like Marc

Prensky wrote in 'Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants'. In that article published

over a decade ago, he stated that "today's students are no longer the people

our educational system was designed to teach" and that we need to "consider

both our methodology and our content." (Prensky, 2001)

After that, the question of education and digital culture – or new literacies, or

21st century skills – has been considered and studied by many. Nowadays,

instead of hypeing the revolutionary new generation or expecting the technology

to boost learning outcome, there is a multitude of educational models for inte-

grating technology into pedagogical designs to support the learners' processes.

I work in a vocational institute that trains not only vocational students but also

teachers and teacher trainees. Our learning solutions team arranged a new

course called "Edutech bootcamp" for teacher trainees in September 2012. As

the subject matter of this course was educational technology (or technology in

favour of education), and as the other cornerstones were social learning, self-

regulated learning and collaboration, I felt it fitting to connect this study on

pedagogical frameworks to the specific course and make the research more

contextual. We applied a pedagogical model that helped in uniting the use of

technology to the social aspects of learning and to the trainees' learning

process. Therefore, I had the opportunity to both review different models and

see how a model performs in practice.

3

One current model that aims to take into account both technology, pedagogy

and the students' own activity, is called the pedagogical infrastructure frame-

work, developed by Minna Lakkala in her dissertation. (Lakkala, 2010). In addi-

tion to the technical and prestructured instructional design it pays particular at-

tention to collaborative knowledge construction and students' self-regulated

learning. (Lakkala, Ilomäki, & Kosonen, 2010)

I will examine some models and their premises, and comment on their strengths

and weaknesses in the light of my particular setting. I will also explain why I

chose the pedagogical infrastructure framework and how I applied it to planning

and evaluating our course. I will form an opinion on the changes in the peda-

gogical process and an opinion on the framework itself. Finally, I will conclude

by forming an opinion on the overall usability of the pedagogical infrastructure

framework and sketch some directions to develop it even further.

1.1 The setting

In order to understand the application of the framework both in designing and in

assessing the course, I describe the programme in some detail. The Edutech

bootcamp is a 5 ECTS credits course, belonging to the optional studies of the

vocational teachers education studies in the Oulu University of Applied

Sciences. The 15 students form a multicultural group and the course language

is English.

The Edutech bootcamp is arranged by the Learning Solutions team of Inno-

Omnia, a part of Omnia, the Joint Authority of Education in Espoo Region. The

core of the course is a two-day workshop facilitated by Omnia, a vocational col-

lege, including precourse and postcourse assignments. The bootcamp was

planned and carried out jointly by the learning solutions team of InnoOmnia,

which has a special privilege to give further professional training for teachers in

social media, mobile learning and new learning environments.

4

As I am doing separate postgraduate pedagogical studies in the University of

Helsinki, I had the opportunity to combine my work and my studies. Thus I took

the initiative in setting up the master plan of the course and expanding it into a

detailed programme together with the team.

The learning objectives of the course were to familiarize the students with the

commonly used social media and mobile learning tools and applications, and to

give the participants an understanding of the role technology has in learning,

ranging from traditional classroom learning to e- and m-learning. (“Optional

Studies,” 2012)

The pedagogical approach of the Edutech bootcamp was based on Kolb’s

learning cycle both on the level of the whole bootcamp and in its sessions. The

working methods consisted of experiential and authentic hands-on technology-

enhanced collaborative sessions. (Ilomäki, Taalas, & Lakkala, 2012; Kolb &

Boyatzis, 2000)

The bootcamp was based on six major learning sessions. They all started with

an introduction and ended with a wrap-up – usually a combination of discussion

and commenting on the course blog at http://eduinno12.blogspot.fi. The first

part of the first day was intensive on devices and tools in order to acquire the

basic skills for using educational technology during the course. The objectives

were to learn their basic use, to understand how they are used in education,

and also to apply them in the Edutech bootcamp itself. The latter part of the first

day had a more discursive take on the subject. The day ended with a QR-code

based track over the InnoOmnia facilities, a sort of learner’s scavenger hunt

with iPads.

The second day started with conceptualizing the first day's learning with

Popplet, a mind mapping app, in order to support the abstract conceptualization

(according to Kolb's learning cycle), or to reach the Popperian "World 3" (see

Bereiter, 2002) After this session there was a lecture-based session on social

learning and connectivism in vocational education and training.

5

The final session "Learning the InnoOmnia community" was about finding

answers to questions such as: what is a community of practice like, how do the

principles of a community of practice show up in InnoOmnia, and how does

technology support the community of practice of InnoOmnia. The trainee-groups

got a key and an iPad, and started by consulting the course blog about what a

"community of practice" means, how it can be used as a support in learning,

and what they are exactly expected to dig out in their own task. The groups

interviewed students, entrepreneurs and teachers in InnoOmnia and produced

learning outcome in various audiovisual forms to be watched and discussed by

all the participants together in the wrap-up session.

After the course the students were to fill in feedback surveys, to produce reflec-

tive learning outcomes, and to do some further work for the forthcoming

Edupreneur bootcamp in November.

6

2 Theoretical context

This study is situational and practical. It arose from the need to plan a course, to

base that planning on a comprehensive framework, and to study how this new

type of a course would perform – although the main topic of this research is not

the accomplishments of the course but the theoretical frameworking model.

There are numerous frameworks and models on designing a learning process

augmented by technology. In this case, the criteria to choose between models

were based on our conceptions and preferences on learning-theoretical para-

digms, and on the content and objectives of the course.

Our take on learning is essentially sociocultural. Along this line, we see

Vygotsky's model of the zone of proximal development as a central one. In

addition to the idea of reaching one's potential development "under adult

guidance", we emphasize the alternative Vygotsky ends his definition with: "or

in collaboration with more capable peers." (Vygotsky, 1978, 86) So, instead of

relying on prestructured instructional scaffolding, we prefer to leave a lot of

room for the development of the situational processes.

We do also take into account socio-constructivist approaches, particularly such

conceptualizations and methods that are close to the cultural and social aspects

of learning. These include e.g. distributed and situated cognition, and cognitive

apprenticeship and reciprocal teaching. (Hakkarainen, Lonka, & Lipponen,

2004; Lakkala, 2010)

Another cornerstone of our approach to learning is the paradigm of a communi-

ty of practice. We use it both as a model for how sociocultural learning evolves

in a situation, and as a guideline in designing courses that are for groups that

will form a more close relationship than of a random two-day course crowd. By

including the principle of a community of practice in our course planning we aim

to support the group to form shared practices and ways of creating meaning.

The group of students who participated in the Edutech bootcamp will continue

7

their recently-started teacher training as a group during the whole of the next

term.

To be more precise, by a community of practice researchers most often refer to

a community in which knowledge or learning is not an objective as such but

happens in an organic and non-intentional process as a side- or as a co-

product. Thus, when speaking about our ways of using social learning in order

to support the Edutech bootcamp and the students’ path on their pedagogical

studies, it might be more precise to talk about a “knowledge-building communi-

ty”. (Hoadley, 2012) However, in their task of learning InnoOmnia, the distinc-

tion is not so clear, as the activity included two kinds of aims: intentional, learn-

ing-centric; and more informal group-forming purposes as well. I will be using

the expression community of practice unless I refer specifically to intentional

learning objectives of the group.

This kind of a social or community point of view of learning, culture and technol-

ogy is at the core of my usage of the expression "21st century learning" that I

chose for the title of this study. My way of using the concept is derived from the

more common expressions "21st century skills" and "21st century literacy" that

are used widely – and wildly, by researchers on the one hand and by company

executives on the other. Most often 21st century skills are said to include a set

of skills that "enable participation in the new communities emerging within a

networked society" (Ilomäki et al., 2012).

21st century learning includes not only technology, digital culture and new

learning environments but also new pedagogical approaches and working

methods. These usually include some kind of teamwork (or social learning or

collaborative learning), and methods like problem-based or inquiry learning.

(Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007; Marold, 2002). "21st century" is not a

calendar term here. It is a way of expressing a new paradigm that has evolved

along the deconstruction of "one size fits all" thinking and along the revolution in

the ownership of knowledge. (Robinson & Aronica, 2009; Suoranta & Vadén,

2012) For me, 21st century learning is a meaning-making process that evolves

through active participation in technology-augmented networks.

8

2.1 Theoretical framework

As the cornerstones of the course are education technology, social learning,

self-regulated learning, and collaboration, I decided to apply the pedagogical

infrastructure framework developed in Lakkala's dissertation, and see how well

this theoretical model would fit in a practical situation. In my research work I've

come to learn several theories and models on applying technology in education.

I will introduce three of them in this study. I will also explain in detail why I have

chosen this framework model over the others.

The main questions for this study are

• How practical and comprehensive the pedagogical infrastructure frame-

work is in planning a course for teacher trainees on educational technol-

ogy?

• To what extent does the model support evaluating a course based on

collaborative, social and self-regulated learning, and does the model

support finding the shortcomings and ways to improve the course?

• What is my opinion on this model compared to other similar models for

pedagogical design?

Looking into possible models to be applied I found out that there are a lot of

frameworks to choose from. On the other hand, there is the group of models

that lay out practical tools for analysing learning and activity as a social setting,

but lack the technical aspect, like Engeström's theory of expansive learning.

(Engeström, 2001) On the other hand, there are models that are very specific

on technology and the learning environment, but abstract on pedagogy and par-

ticularly on the learner's knowledge-formation, like the model of design compo-

nents of student-centred learning environments. (Land, Hannafin, & Oliver,

2012). In between these realms, there are at least three models that take into

account technology, and socio-cultural or socio-constructivist learning theories.

9

The TPACK model is an adaptation of Lee Schulman's elaboration on the

PACK model. Shulman introduced the notion that the special knowledge (K)

that teachers have, lies in the intersection of pedagogy (P) and content (C).

Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler developed TPACK to take into account also

the technological tools and environments. TPACK is an acronym for "Tech-

nological Pedagogical Content Knowledge" ("A" for making it easier to

pronounce and remember). In the heart of the model is the idea that a teacher

must combine and address all the components of TPACK in a situation. Not

only is a teacher to combine technology, pedagogy, and content, but the special

knowledge in between every two components as well (see below). (Mishra &

Koehler, 2009; “TPACK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge,”

2011)

Figure 1. The TPACK model. Source: www.tpack.org

TPACK as such is a flexible tool that requires an experienced teacher who

manages all the components and who has enough situational and pedagogic

competence to find a way of addressing all the spheres properly. The flexibility

can also mean fuzzyness and vulnerability to misapplications. Even the funda-

mental logic of the TPACK model has been questioned. (Kimmons, 2011)

10

As such, it is not a concrete tool to be applied when planning the details of

course modules. When starting to plan the Edutech bootcamp I wanted to have

a theoretical model that would be closely tied to the concrete elements of the

learning situation. It is possible and even likely that such a bridging framework

for TPACK does exist, but at the time of planning I did not find one.

Another strong candidate for the framework was Bill Cope's and Mary Kalantzis'

"Learning by Design" pedagogy. Their view of a successful learning design is

for the teacher to take into account not only input, but also the conditions of the

learners' engagement, or how to get them personally involved. So, according to

them, the difference does not lie in the selection of the tools or the input. Using

technology is similar to using a textbook. "The real issue is one of engagement,

and this will only occur in conditions of belonging and transformation, where the

engagement carries the learner, one step at a time, distances that are appropri-

ate to their starting point." (Cope & Kalantzis, 2004, 60)

The Learning by Design principles consist of three levels that learning designs

must meet: The Learning Community level, which articulates the goals and ex-

pectations of various actors in the educational body; The Learning Framework

level, which forms the underlying curriculum of the programme; The Learning

Element which is the pedagogical way for selecting, designing and experiencing

learning activities in any learning encounter. (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012)

Kalantzis and Cope build upon Bloom's taxonomy and Kolb's learning circle as

they construct their model of eight "Knowledge Processes". These processes

are activity types which suit the different phases of a learning process as Kolb

describes it. The phases of experiencing, applying, analysing, and conceptual-

ising can be regarded as steps on the hermeneutical spiral of the learning pro-

cess. (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012)

11

Figure 2. Eight knowledge processes of Learning by Design.

In a similar way to TPACK, Learning by Design provides a practical framework

for a teacher to reflect on, and to be scooped out for everyday course planning.

My take on technology and education shares a lot of their premises and philos-

ophy, and I include much of their mentality in my thinking. Nevertheless, for the

purpose of this very course I was to plan, and for the purpose of this short

study, they were not concrete and specific enough.

Minna Lakkala's dissertation “How to design educational settings to promote

collaborative inquiry: Pedagogical infrastructures for technology-enhanced

progressive inquiry” studied implementing the pedagogical model of the

Progressive Inquiry and related Web-based tools in various real-life contexts.

The dissertation outlined a framework that was meant to "help to recognize and

critically evaluate the invisible learning-cultural conventions in various educa-

tional settings." (Lakkala, 2010, 5) As the framework already contained a

detailed practical approach with real-life examples and as the dissertation

brought up the wish for the framework to be developed in a more concrete

12

direction, it seemed a tool practicable enough and flexible enough for my

purposes.

Lakkala's 'pedagogical infrastructure framework' is based on a combination of

socio-cultural and socio-constructivist learning theories, and it is constructed on

the experiences of four very different cases in which the Progressive Inquiry

was used as a learning method. According to the pedagogical infrastructure

framework, there are four components that form the infrastructure of an educa-

tional setting: "The knowledge creation should consist of deliberately designed

technical, social, epistemic, and cognitive support structures." (Lakkala, 2010,

79) What made this model particularly applicable was the table that explicated

the definitions of each components, as well as the features for fostering pro-

gressive inquiry practices.

Minna Lakkala co-authored an article with Liisa Ilomäki and Kari Kosonen in

which they dealt with three cases in the light of the pedagogical infrastructure

framework. It was most helpful in describing the essential design features of the

settings in the cases in question. It also showed how the framework could be

used in evaluating the settings and giving suggestions for improvements.

There are some minor differences in the naming and usage of concepts

between the above-mentioned dissertation and the article. As my main

reference I use the above-mentioned article ‘From Instructional Design to

Setting Up Pedagogical Infrastructures: Designing Technology-Enhanced

Knowledge Creation’ by M Lakkala, L Ilomäki & K Kosonen in B Ertl (Ed.),

Technologies and Practices for Constructing Knowledge in Online Environ-

ments: Advancements in Learning. (Lakkala et al., 2010)

Having found these two studies I saw that this model provided me with a useful

tool and theoretical background for planning and evaluating the Edutech

bootcamp. Lakkala, Ilomäki & Kosonen end their article with a wish: "An

interesting and fruitful endeavour could be a research and design project,

conducted together with some knowledgeable educators, testing whether the

framework helps them to evaluate their course designs in more systematic way,

13

and working with the educators to develop and concretize the framework

further." I hope that my study is of use for the developers of this framework, too.

2.2 Methodology

This study is an example of design-based research: It is pragmatic, and it mixes

various strategies based on the needs of the situation at hand. As Lakkala

formulates, design-based research aims "at understanding how to orchestrate

innovative pedagogical practices in authentic educational contexts, and

simultaneously developing new theoretical insight about the nature of learning

and teaching." (Lakkala, 2010, 46) In this short paper aspirations towards new

theoretical insight have to be left aside.

Along Edelson's division of different types of design research, my take on the

subject is domain theory: a descriptive, not a prescriptive characterization.

There are two classes in domain theories: context theories and outcome theo-

ries. The study in question is a context theory, characterizing "the challenges

and opportunities presented by a class of design contexts." (Edelson, 2009)

After having carried out the bootcamp with my colleagues we had an informal

reflective talk, both face-to-face and by email. Soon after the bootcamp we sent

the students a Google Documents form of twenty questions. For every

framework component (technical, social, epistemological and cognitive) there

were four Likert-scale claims on carrying out our design and one open question

for suggestions for improvements. The claims were written as course planning

objectives that we wished to achieve, like "Assignments aimed at truly collab-

orative co-construction of knowledge objects." The survey questionnaire is

attached as Appendix 1. It can also be reached online, http://j.mp/UI2jYF.

In the first week after sending the survey, three out of fifteen students

responded. After a reminder, one more reply was gotten. Due to the low hand-in

percentage, the feedback is not necessarily reflective of the students' compre-

hensive attitudes, and thus the sections on the feedback remain somewhat

14

cursory. The results can be considered valid and reliable but they are not

representative of the group as a whole. The students had a postcourse assign-

ment in which they had to reflect their learning and experiences. These were

not yet available on writing this study.

15

3 The Pedagogical infrastructure framework of the Edutech Bootcamp

First I will present the main design features and shortcomings in a table form as

they are structured in Lakkala's dissertation (p. 82) and in Lakkala, Ilomäki &

Kosonen's article. The division into components, the essential design features

of the setting and the shortcomings in the design and suggestions for improve-

ments as such is used both in the dissertation and in the article. After this all-

inclusive table I will discuss each component separately.

The contents of the table cells are my interpretations of the features and short-

comings of the bootcamp. The essential design features are written as a part of

the course plan before the bootcamp. The shortcomings and suggestions are

written on the basis of the facilitators' and students' feedback. At the end of four

component chapters there is a paragraph discussing the students' feedback on

the Edutech bootcamp. The feedback section remains cursory because of the

low hand-in percentage. This is discussed in detail in the chapter 2.2 above.

Table 1. The main design features and shortcomings of the pedagogical infrastructure

framework of the Edutech bootcamp

Component Essential design features of the

setting (set prior to course) Shortcomings in the design and sug-gestions for improvements

Technical • Basic tools: blog & iPads • Various mLearning apps

for personal and collabora-tive use for writing, taking pictures and video, for browsing and concept-mapping

• Cloud services and re-sources tutoring the use of apps and other resources (e.g. Youtube)

• Social media platforms that link formal, nonformal and informal learning

• ICT infrastructure: wifi, ap-ple TV, projectors

• It would make sense to start half an hour earlier with those students who are not familiar with basic tools, in this case blogging, to help them to reach the basic skills that others al-ready have

• Introductory (or flipped-classroom) video would have served the basic tools learning session

• The implementation of QR-based game-like "trophies" was too complex and did not work as the students were better off focusing on the more essential things. Thus we left the trophy-collecting out of the programme right after the second session.

16

• 1-to-1 iPad would have been better than the 2-to-3 ratio that we could provide in this situa-tion.

Social • Group activities: hands-on work for constructing knowledge&skills

• Structured group settings like duel discussions and evaluation discussions

• Unstructured personal and group settings like mobile qr track

• Analysis and participation in the community of prac-tice in InnoOmnia

• Informal get-together party

• Some student felt that some others did not participate but kept on doing other, mostly work-related things instead. This may mean that more at-tention should have been paid to group dynamics. However, as most of the learners did their studies alongside their full-time work, it's understandable that they couldn't concentrate on the bootcamp 100% all the time.

Epistemological • Theoretical framework partly provided by facilita-tors, partly on students’ own activity (group work)

• Information on the Finnish educational system and vocational education and training

• Device and app training provided

• Cloud services and social media platforms partly as-sisted and partly as their own group work

• Edutech application cases and examples partly pre-sented by facilitators, part-ly accessed as students’ own activity

• "Fuzzy" knowledge to be gathered about the InnoOmnia community of practice

• On the basis of the survey feedback, it seems that we were able to provide proper cir-cumstances and information for creating knowledge

• It seems that we were not able to personalize the process enough for this heterogeneous group, but some felt that there was too much information, par-ticularly about various tools and services of the educational technology.

Cognitive • The sessions start with an introduction to the objec-tives and end with a reflec-tive round-up. During and after the sessions the stu-dents are expected to write about their process both on the blog and on their personal learning envi-ronments.

• As is often the case with adult education, students are expected to be active, to take initiative and to have self-regulated learn-ing skills and positive atti-tude to their own process.

• Expectations should have been clarified more both in advance and during the sessions.

• The course objectives, partici-pants and programme were not presented in the opening – this should be done in the very be-ginning

17

3.1 The technical component of the Edutech bootcamp

According to its definition, the technical component of the framework includes

the providing of technology and technical advice to the participants; organizing

and orchestrating the use of technology; the functionality of the tools provided;

and their appropriateness for the desired activity. (Lakkala, 2010, 82)

The sociocultural and the community of practice-based pedagogical approach

characterised the selection of methods and partly also the selection of technol-

ogy. In the case of the Edutech bootcamp it must be emphasized that the role of

technology was at the core of the whole workshop as the idea was to learn to

apply educational technology.

Because technology was the key topic, I will discuss this component more

thoroughly than the others. I will focus on the core technologies, and will be

more cursory when starting to discuss the additional technology.

As the basic tools of the course we had chosen iPads and the course blog. We

provided the students with ten iPads. Some had their own, and some opted to

use their own laptop.

I had been planning the initial technical 1.5-hour facilitator-led hands-on session

introducing iPads and our blog with the mobile systems specialist of our team.

We had decided to use Blogger as our course blog engine because it is one of

the most familiar platforms in education: well-know, easy, has a lot of educa-

tional blogs available, a wide variety of features and gadgets – and we the facili-

tators felt comfortable with it. We had asked the students to create a Google

account prior to coming to the workshop, so we could start from adding them as

authors to our blog from the first moment.

As the use of technology should be as fluent and transparent in a learning situa-

tion as possible, it is important that the facilitator can assist the participants

18

smoothly with the tools. In addition to that, if technology is to be used socially,

or if interaction is to be built on it, the learners must feel confident with the

chosen tool – they don't have to master it but they should feel comfortable in

experimenting and exploring with it.

The iPad introduction covered not only the device (hardware buttons, gestures,

interface) but also the apps we had planned to be most essential: Safari (web

browser), Blogger (for text & picture blogging), QRafter (for QR-code based

sessions), and Photos (for sending videos to Youtube).

In the blogging session the challenges of introducing a large group into mobile

blogging with a new account caused some hassle in the beginning. In such a

situation the facilitators must be able to adjust the plan and guide the students

long enough on the basics to get the problems sorted out.

We had planned to drill blogging with several tasks but the process of getting

everyone as authors to the blog writers' list and to succeed with their first blog

post took an hour instead of 30–40 minutes as planned. In retrospect, as all

students were able to start with blogging and did continue to blog during the

bootcamp, we consider the technical decisions and assistance to have been

sufficient or even successful.

After the initial session for the whole group, the students had to choose from

four alternative workshops: mobile learning (iMovie app, Youtube), visual doc-

umentation (Prezi, Slideshare, Jing, Screenr, Answergarden), collaborative writ-

ing (Google Documents, Google Drive app, Etherpad), and social platforms

(Wikispaces, Facebook, Twitter). In these they learned to use mobile tools and

cloud services in educational contexts, producing their own outcomes and link-

ing them on our course blog. For example, this post links to the collaborative

outcome of the collaborative writing workshop: http://eduinno12.blogspot.fi/

2012/09/collaborative-writing-on-desktop-on-go.html

Technology was applied in other sessions as well. In preparing for the duel

discussions the groups used the iPads and their own laptops both for

19

watching/reading the source materials and for constructing their strategy and

points. One group made a Google presentation and two others made a blog

post about their arguments to be shared and shown in the duel situation on the

projector wall.

On the QR-code based track, or "scavenger hunt", they wandered from one

checkpoint to another, reading QR-codes (i.e. 2D barcodes) that had both

Edutech case examples and directions to the next checkpoint. The aim was

both to introduce the educational use QR codes to them and to introduce the

educational facilities of the college. On the next day they learned to do a collab-

orative mind map of the previous day's learning with the Popplet app. Along

with the theoretical (albeit discussive) lecture, SlideShare.net and cloud-based

repositories like Dropbox.com were introduced.

As the last Edutech task the students read short descriptions about what a

community of practice is and how it can be supported by technology. After that

they had to find out what makes the "InnoOmnia community" and how we

support it with technology. They were to wander around the facilities, observe,

interview and make an outcome that they could link on the blog. Three of the

five groups made videos by shooting with an iPad and uploading material on

Youtube, one made comic strips with Stripdesign app, and one made a

Facebook page with text and picture-based wall entries.

Observation during the sessions and in the reflective wrap-up closings, as well

as the evaluation of the outcomes and survey feedback indicated that the

arrangement of technical component had succeeded in a satisfactory manner.

This is not to say that there wouldn't be room for further improvements:

Although we are experienced in facilitating educational technology training, it

took us longer than expected to work out e.g. blogging and some other

technical modules. Thus we had to drop off the game-like collecting of trophies

soon after the first morning.

The students got to fill in a survey that had four Likert-scale statements and one

open question about suggestions for improvements. The statement formulations

20

were factors that Lakkala listed as features of the components in her disserta-

tion. For example, "The technology we used enabled and facilitated co-

construction and elaboration of shared knowledge artefacts and collaborative

processes" is a verbatim quote of Lakkala's formulation in other aspects, but I

have changed the pronoun to "we".

The students' responses show that they were generally positive about the tech-

nical component of the bootcamp. On a five-step Likert-scale, where 5=strongly

agree and 1=strongly disagree, the students gave an overall rate of 3.7/5. In the

open comments two students mentioned that a 1:1 ratio on iPads would have

been anvantageous.

3.2 The social component of the Edutech bootcamp

The social component is defined as the combination of designed individual or

collaborative student activities and required outcomes, and actual arrangements

to organize students' collaboration and social interaction. (Lakkala, 2010, 82)

The Edutech bootcamp was designed to consist mainly of collaborative and

experiential sessions. As the initiative technological skill levels of the students

were expected to vary a lot, we wanted different collaborative methods to help

them to take the initiative and solve problems "in collaboration with more capa-

ble peers." (Vygotsky, 1978, 86)

Some sessions were more pre-structured and teacher-centric. This approach

served well e.g. in introducing the basic tools of the bootcamp or introducing

learning theories. The theory session was initially planned to include more stu-

dent-based knowledge creation. However, in the situation it seemed wise to

make some changes which would help the students to focus on fewer things but

more thoroughly.

The sessions that involved particular collaborative knowledge construction,

were "The Duel", "Popplet mind mapping", and "Learn the InnoOmnia communi-

21

ty." In the Duel groups of four students had to form an opinion and take sides

with regard to the claims of the source material. After that two groups debated a

pro&con issue, and at the end of the duel the other groups were allowed to join

and comment.

The "Learn the InnoOmnia community" task required self-regulated learning and

strategic action. As described in chapter 2.1 on the technical component, the

students had to learn the theoretical content and the task instructions by them-

selves. After that they had to take their mobile device and a key with which they

could enter most of the spaces of the facility, and start observing and chatting

with people. This way they not only read about what is a community of practice

but they had to interact with one to see what made it as one, and along with

proceeding with this task, they also started to form their own shared practices,

and an identity as a specific group of teacher trainees.

As their recently-started studies are mainly carried out as distance learning, by

such making them to form a knowledge-creating community we wanted to sup-

port the creation of their own common practices, and the formation of their own

community of practice.

If we consider the setting – a multicultural group of adult learners who hardly

knew each other – the interaction seemed to be close and frequent, both

between the students themselves and between the students and the facilitators.

During the task the interaction between the groups was scant but in the wrap-up

session the students were active in commenting the process and the outcomes.

The students' responses to the social component of the undertaking support the

above-mentioned observation of the close interaction within the group: they

were generally positive about the bootcamp. On a five-step Likert-scale, where

5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree, the students gave an overall rate of

4,0/5. There were no direct suggestions for improvement on this component.

22

3.3 The epistemological component of the Edutech bootcamp

Minna Lakkala defines the epistemological component as "the ways of

operating with knowledge and the nature of knowledge processing that the

assignments promote; nature of knowledge resources used; and the role of

participants and information resources while working with knowledge." (Lakkala,

2010, 82)

The static, external information resources that were accessed before, during

and after the course were very heterogeneous: factual articles, EU-communique

on VET, suggested online videos, descriptive audio-visual tutorials, web-based

keynote recordings, etc. In addition to these, the facilitators shared their exper-

tise in the classroom, on the blog, 1-to-1, 1-to-all, 1-to-group.

The external resources had two functions. On the one hand, there were low-

level thinking aids like application tutorials. Others were more on high-level

thinking: some pedagogic, like background information on communities of

practice, and some thought-provoking, like Sir Ken Robinson's video Changing

Education Paradigms. (Robinson, 2010) The video required students to take a

personal stance and form a relation to its subject. This was not only to collect

information but also to make meaning and work toward internalising the

information. For example, in The Duel one student regarded it as useful to have

to take a different stand on the topic than he personally would, and defend that,

because it helped him to realize his own attitudes, values and what he has

taken for granted.

In the "Learn the InnoOmnia community" the students had to construct

knowledge and a shared opinion on communities of practice, and to some

extent act in a way a community of practice does. This task presented an

authentic, ill-defined problem that had to be solved and worked towards a more

cognitive or metacognitive processing of knowledge-creation.

23

The students' responses to the epistemological component of the undertaking

show that the design of the epistemological component of the bootcamp did

succeed well. On a five-step Likert-scale, where 5=strongly agree and

1=strongly disagree, the students gave an overall rate of 4.1/5.

3.4 The cognitive component of the Edutech bootcamp

The cognitive component is about "designed tasks and artefacts or tools per-

forming a modelling and reflective function for promoting students' self-

regulative competencies to work in an intended way". (Lakkala, 2010, 82)

Practically all the sessions were designed along Kolb's learning cycle, so that

we included both the perception and the processing axles into the session. First

there was an introductory, conceptual part, then active experimentation, then

getting concrete experience, and in the end, reflective observation. Since forth-

coming sessions were to build upon preceding sessions, we hoped to support a

hermeneutical spiral in the learning process. Although we did not mention this

structure or Kolb's theory explicitly, in the wrap-up discussion after the first day

one student did mention his notion of this structure. That was not only an exam-

ple of his metacognitive skills but gave us a natural point to enter this theoretical

model into discussion.

Most of the sessions were student-centred, and left a lot of decision-making and

control to them. They were able to use the knowledge and skills resources they

already had in the tasks, and as small groups they had to negotiate which prac-

tices and strategies were best for the task at hand.

A comment that a student made during the Duel about reflecting on his attitudes

was a good example of the self-regulatory and metacognitive nature of the

learning process that the student was under. Sharing his observations with

other students was very constructive for all participants as it enabled them to

view their own metacognitive processes in a more thorough manner.

24

Along using new educational technology we discussed not only the Edutech

bootcamp trainees' take on learning but how a similar approach could be

implemented in their own teaching, too. For example social learning, deep

learning, mental models and flipped classroom were mentioned in the context of

various educational technology tools and resources.

As was stated in chapter 3.3, the "Learn the InnoOmnia community" presented

an authentic, ill-defined problem that had to be solved. As such, it worked as a

metacognitive scaffolding for the learners. In this kind of a task the scaffolding is

distributed. That means that the support for students in a complex classroom

setting is distributed across various agents in the learning environment, such as

"material resources, task structures, social arrangements, and technological

tools, as well as teacher guidance." (Lakkala et al., 2010)

The students' responses to the cognitive component were not so favourable as

towards the other components. On a five-step Likert-scale, where 5=strongly

agree and 1=strongly disagree, the students gave an overall rate of 3.4/5. That

means that they still mostly agreed on our ambitious statements like "Expert-like

knowledge practices were explicitly modelled through concrete models and

templates." It might be that more or different kind of scaffolding would have

been needed. It also might be that on a two-day course there is not enough time

for metacognitive processing no matter what kind of scaffolding is provided.

25

4 Evaluating the applicability of the pedagogical infrastructure framework

InnoOmnia Learning Solutions team has been arranging educational technology

courses for two years – the time the team has existed. Although the format of

the Edutech bootcamp is new, the team has a history of arranging comparable

short courses on social media and mobile learning in vocational education and

training. Contrary to the bootcamp, planning and assessing those courses has

happened collaboratively without any certain explicit framework. Considering

this history and this particular difference we can juxtapose the Edutech

bootcamp and other courses, and try to form an opinion on the changes in the

process and analyse the usability of the pedagogical infrastructure framework.

To begin with an overall view of the arrangements, timing, technology, tasks

and interaction, there is no major difference between our other courses and the

Edutech bootcamp. The course will not automatically become a thriving one

when picking a certain model and following it, particularly as we are a team of

seasoned educators with a broad set of pedagogical "tricks" at our disposal.

Those tricks and techniques are from various models and books, and also from

practical experience. Moreover, we have been sharing our views e.g. on the

TPACK model and appreciate it, so we already have internalized a lot from that

model into our working. It is likely that starting with TPACK or Learning by De-

sign would have provided an equally satisfactory, though a different kind of a

pedagogical catering.

Applying this very model of the pedagogical infrastructure framework was not a

completely different thing from our ordinary planning and assessing a course.

Yet, it did present some changes. First of all, having a precise framework as a

starting point for planning helped us formulate which factors we should take into

account and which components we should address. The Edutech bootcamp

was to be based on a learner-centred, collaborative process, so taking the ped-

agogical infrastructure framework as our explicit model was straightforward: no

artificial structuring for theory's sake had to be made.

26

The feedback statistics cumulated from previous courses show that the tech-

nical and social components have always been a strong part of our training.

Now, the pedagogical infrastructure framework made us take it one step further

and to elaborate on the epistemological and cognitive components more me-

ticulously. Particularly the epistemological component gained from this, as was

described in chapter 3.3 in detail. Also the cognitive component was expressed

with more clarity in the course plan, but in the light of the students' feedback,

the implementation did not reach the heights we aspired to.

One by-product of implementing the framework is the way we took the commu-

nity of practice and the knowledge-creating community into account. Applying a

framework that was developed in the context of collaborative knowledge-

creation learning-theories made us pay more attention to these practices.

Lankshear and Knobel state that "the efficacy of social learning is predicated on

the fact that it immerses learners in processes of induction into the ‘ways’ of

becoming ‘full practitioners’ and acquiring their appreciative systems, as well as

getting hands-on practice with their mental and material tools within authentic

contexts in which they are employed by successful practitioners from the

outset." (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, 220) Their formulation describes well what

the Edutech bootcamp achieved: not to "learn about" but to "learn to be" a full

participant of the knowledge-creating community. Now, as we had tools to

weave technical, social, epistemological, and cognitive components into the

bootcamp, we were able to address those issues and factors of the learning

process as a joint community process. Without the framework the processes

would have been more individual, or intrapersonal.

The pedagogical infrastructure framework helped in evaluating the course more

than in the planning phase. The facilitators' observations and feedback accom-

panied by the students' survey feedback helped us to spot the shortcomings

and to get suggestions for concrete improvements. These are listed in Table 1,

in chapter 3.

27

If the teacher designing a course is not acquainted with collaborative and tech-

nology-enhanced collaborative knowledge creation, I doubt if the model would

help a lot. If they are seasoned, they might plan a course with all the essential

components even without the model. According to our own experience, I con-

sider the pedagogical infrastructure framework to be the strongest in evaluating

the course. It works as a checklist and as a basis for a feedback questionnaire.

For that purpose, the component definitions presented in Lakkala's dissertation

were easy to formulate as survey statements regarding the specific course held.

It is difficult to say to what extent the results of this study can be generalized or

how well the pedagogical infrastructure framework fits some other pedagogical

situation. As knowledge is not merely objective, transmittable packets of infor-

mation, but situational and contextual, it also means that we cannot state that

some specific learning environment, pedagogical infrastructure, or design

framework would be universally superior. “Rather,” like the article ‘Student-

Centred Learning Environments’ states (Land et al., 2012), “we need to identify

frameworks for analysing, designing, and implementing learning environments

that embody and align particular foundations, assumptions, and practices.” (5)

In this sense, educational research and practice go hand-in-hand: they most

often are pragmatic and design-based, and must take a lot of situational param-

eters into account.

28

5 Conclusion

I started by discussing "the accent" of digital immigrants and how they (we) are

setting up learning facilities for digital natives. Back in the 90's the educational

technology consisted of personal learning platforms, integrated and mainly

closed sets for storing relevant learning resources and tests. After that era

came personal learning environments, systems that help learners take control

of and manage their own learning. It is noteworthy that PLEs are usually re-

garded as "the computer-based part of the learning ecosystem". (van Harmelen,

2008)

Nowadays, as we have been living this 21st century for more than a decade,

the buzzword is personal learning network, a concept that shifts the centre of

the learning from technology or the physical environment to the domain of social

learning à la Vygotsky or connectivism à la George Siemens. Moreover, it's not

only computer-based, but also accessible via mobile devices – anywhere, any-

time. What I like to underline in defining personal learning network is the notion

that mobile learning bridges the gap between "analog" and "digital" worlds, the

dichotomy between non-mediated and mediated participation. Thus a personal

learning network covers both the corporeal circumstances and online communi-

ties and resources.

When adding technology into the picture the teacher has to have a third compe-

tence in addition to the traditional competences of pedagogy and content. The

more components of competence and variables there are in the situation, the

more there's a need for structured planning and evaluation.

Searching for a tool to design and evaluate a course which takes place as

contact teaching but which extends to the online world requires finding a model

that takes into account as well the technical, the social, as the learners' inner

processes. In the light of our experience, by letting the learners do their learning

in an authentic context, by letting them decide on their task management

themselves it is very natural to get them engaged, and to take ownership of

29

their own learning. By putting them to analyse and evaluate InnoOmnia's prac-

tices and to create unconventional learning outcomes, we wanted them to use

also their higher-level thinking skills (as analysing, evaluating and creating are

classified in Bloom's taxonomy).

The pedagogical infrastructure framework is both inclusive and general, and

detailed enough for it to be easily used in practical course design. The frame-

work was helpful in planning the course tasks. With it, it was easy to specify the

objectives and the methods to achieve those objectives. In spite of having a

comprehensive set of components, the pedagogical infrastructure framework

does not provide as good support in thinking about the phases of the learning

process as the Learning by Design model does, and this gives a natural direc-

tion to elaborate and develop the model even further.

The pedagogical infrastructure framework was found particularly useful in eval-

uating the course, and particularly in locating areas that had room for improve-

ment. No other model that I encountered during this research did provide as

much help in assessing the practical enactment of an educational technology

setting than the pedagogical infrastructure framework.

As pedagogical situations vary so much, it is not possible to give any absolute

answers as to which model is the best. It would be interesting to see a synthesis

of the three models I have introduced: the pedagogical infrastructure frame-

work, TPACK and Learning by Design. It might have a similar structure as the

pedagogical infrastructure framework but it would approach the learning pro-

cess as a more dynamic activity of the entire learning community as Learning

by Design does with its three levels that learning designs must meet and with its

eight Knowledge Processes.

Another dimension of developing the theories would be to lean more to the

socio-ethnographic research, and to look at learning as a social, inter-

psychological process. That would facilitate understanding personal learning

networks, massive open online courses, crowd sourcing and other emerging

areas of education.

30

The present study is a limited seminar work that concentrated on implementing

one pedagogical model on one practical setting. I have applied the pedagogical

infrastructure framework and its four components on the Edutech bootcamp

design and evaluation, and found out that the framework is particularly useful in

pinpointing the areas in need of improvement – in this case the cognitive com-

ponent and the need to clarify the expectations of the tasks better both in ad-

vance and during the sessions. Another essential finding of this study is the

notion that there are several prominent theoretic models which would benefit

from being combined to address the processual nature of learning better. I hope

that this analysis works as a practical model for others who want to apply the

pedagogical infrastructure framework or who are interested in finding a theoreti-

cal angle on their collaborative knowledge-creation.

31

Bibliography

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2004). Designs for Learning. E-Learning, 1(1), 38.

Edelson, D. C. (2009). Journal of the Learning Design Research  : What We Learn When We Engage in Design Design Research  : What We Learn When We Engage in Design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(October 2012), 105–121.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoreti-cal reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Lipponen, L. (2004). Tutkiva oppiminen: Järki, tunteet ja kulttuuri oppimisen sytyttäjinä (6th, renew.). Porvoo: WSOY.

Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a Community of Practice and How Can We Support It? Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (2nd ed., pp. 286–299). New York / London: Routledge.

Ilomäki, L., Taalas, P., & Lakkala, M. (2012). Learning Environment and Digital Literacy: A Mismatch or a Possibility from Finnish Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. Learning the Virtual Life: Public Pedagogy in a Digital World. New York / London: Routledge.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New Learning: Pedagogy. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from http://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/pedagogy/

Kimmons, R. (2011). On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.slideshare.net/roycekimmons/on-the-reasonableness-of-tpack-as-an-implementation-and-evaluation-framework

Kolb, D. A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2000). Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Lakkala, M. (2010). How to design educational settings to promote collaborative inquiry  : Pedagogical infrastructures for technology- enhanced progressive inquiry. University of Helsinki.

32

Lakkala, M., Ilomäki, L., & Kosonen, K. (2010). From Instructional Design to Setting Up Pedagogical Infrastructures  : Designing Technology-Enhanced Knowledge Creation. In B. Ertl (Ed.), Technologies and Practices for Constructing Knowledge in Online Environments: Advancements in Learning (pp. 169–185). Igi Global.

Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-Centered Learning Environments: Foundations, Assumptions and Design. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (2nd ed., pp. 4–25). New York / London: Routledge.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning (3rd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

Marold, K. A. (2002). The 21st Century Learning Model  : Electronic Tutelage Realized. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(2).

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Too Cool for School? No Way! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(May), 14–18.

Optional Studies. (2012). Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.oamk.fi/amok/english/vocational_teacher_education/studies/optional_studies/

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

Robinson, K. (2010). Changing Education Paradigm. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://youtu.be/zDZFcDGpL4U

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2009). The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. London: Penguin Books.

Suoranta, J., & Vadén, T. (2012). Wikilearning as Radical Equality. In P. P. Tri-fonas (Ed.), Learning the Virtual Life: Public Pedagogy in a Digital World (pp. 98–113). New York / London: Routledge.

TPACK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. (2011). Retrieved October 5, 2012, from http://tpack.org

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psycholog-ical Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge / London: Harvard University Press.

van Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: four experiments in PLE imple-mentation. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 35–46.

33

Appendix

Appendix 1. Student feedback survey, October 2012.

Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework of Edutech bootcamp Please rate the following statements.

Group 1 relate to technical, 2 to social, 3 to epistemological and 4 to cognitive component of the bootcamp. The formulations and structuring are from Lakkala, Ilomäki & Kosonen: 'From Instructional Design to Setting Up Pedagogical Infrastructures : Designing Technology-Enhanced Knowledge Creation'.

Your help is appreciated! Thank you!

*Pakollinen

1.a) The technology we used enabled and facilitated co-construction and elaboration of shared knowledge artifacts and collaborative processes. * Rate the providing of technology and technical advice to the participants; organizing and orchestrating the use of technology; the functionality of the tools provided; and their appropriateness for the desired activity

1 2 3 4 5

strongly agree strongly disagree

1.b) Access to technology was easy in all phases of the bootcamp. * Rate the providing of technology and technical advice to the participants; organizing and orchestrating the use of technology; the function-ality of the tools provided; and their appropriateness for the desired activity

1 2 3 4 5


1.c) Face-to-face and technology-mediated activities were highly integrated. * Rate the providing of technology and technical advice to the participants; organizing and orchestrating the use of technology; the functionality of the tools provided; and their appropriateness for the desired activity

1 2 3 4 5


1.d) The guidance available for technology for expert-like knowledge practices was proficient. * Rate the providing of technology and technical advice to the participants; organizing and orchestrating the use of technology; the functionality of the tools provided; and their appropriateness for the desired activity

1 2 3 4 5


34

1.e) Suggestions for improvements on providing of technology and technical advice.

2.a) The whole process was openly shared between the participants. * Rate the combination of de-signed individual or collaborative student activities and required outcomes and actual arrangements to organize students’ collaboration and social interaction.

1 2 3 4 5


2.b) Assignments aimed at truly collaborative co-construction of knowledge objects. * Rate the combination of designed individual or collaborative student activities and required outcomes and actual arrangements to organize students’ collaboration and social interaction.

1 2 3 4 5


2.c) Shared activities and responsibilities were explicitly regulated and defined. *

Rate the combination of designed individual or collaborative student activities and required outcomes and actual arrangements to organize students’ collaboration and social interaction.

1 2 3 4 5


2.d) A supportive and constructive communication atmosphere was deliberately promoted. * Rate the combination of designed individual or collaborative student activities and required outcomes and actual arrangements to organize students’ collaboration and social interaction.

1 2 3 4 5


2.e) Suggestions for improvements on collaboration and social interaction.

3.a) You were engaged in solving complex, ill-defined problems through practices that explicitly and purposefully aimed at creating new knowledge. * Rate the ways of operating with knowledge and the nature of knowledge processing that the assignments promote; nature of knowledge resources used; and the role of participants and information resources while working with knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5


35

3.b) Participants used various knowledge sources. * Rate the ways of operating with knowledge and the nature of knowledge processing that the assignments promote; nature of knowledge resources used; and the role of participants and information resources while working with knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5


3.c) Knowledge was produced also for subsequent use. * Rate the ways of operating with knowledge and the nature of knowledge processing that the assignments promote; nature of knowledge resources used; and the role of participants and information resources while working with knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5


3.d) You were engaged in the real practices of the target field (ie. vocational education and training) * Rate the ways of operating with knowledge and the nature of knowledge processing that the assignments promote; nature of knowledge resources used; and the role of participants and information resources while working with knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5


3.e) Suggestions for improvements on operating with knowledge.

4.a) Expert-like knowledge practices were explicitly modeled through concrete models and tem-plates. *

Rate the designed tasks, artifacts or tools (performing a modeling and reflective function) for promoting students' self-regulative competencies to work in an intended way.

1 2 3 4 5


4.b) We used methods to promote self-reflection. * Rate the designed tasks, artifacts or tools (perform-ing a modeling and reflective function) for promoting students' self- regulative competencies to work in an intended way.

1 2 3 4 5


36

4.c) I got guidance about effective working strategies. * Rate the designed tasks, artifacts or tools (performing a modeling and reflective function) for promoting students' self- regulative competencies to work in an intended way.

1 2 3 4 5


4.d) There was explicit scaffolding for collaborative knowledge creation processes embedded in tools we used. * Rate the designed tasks, artifacts or tools (performing a modeling and reflective function) for promoting students' self- regulative competencies to work in an intended way.

1 2 3 4 5


4.e) Suggestions for improvements the design for reflection and self-regulation.

5.Other comments.