CELePro: Collaboration in E-Learning Projects

Anja Lorenz

Cluster E-Learning

eScience Network Conference Dresden, 12.06.2013

CELePro Collaboration in E-Learning Projects

Science today Project based, mobile, time-flexible

Collaboration in Teaching With whom have you worked together in context of teaching?

With… of your own professor-

ship of your own institution

of other higher educ. institutions

Outside of higher

education

no collabo-ration

(visiting) professor

55.0% (138)

48.2% (121)

31.1% (78)

19.1% (48)

13.1% (33)

research associate

64.9% (163)

52.2% (131)

24.7% (62)

19.5% (49)

7.6% (19)

undergraduate assistants

43.8% (110)

27.9% (70)

5.6% (14)

1.6% (4)

25.9% (65)

other persons

8.0% (20)

6.8% (17)

2.4% (6)

22.7 % (57)

31.1% (78)

No collaboration with any of the given groups: 6 persons (2.4%, N=253)

16.06.2013 Anja Lorenz – CELePro: Collaboration in E-Learning Projects 3 | 19

Enabled by Tools and Concepts Social Software Tools, E-Learning 2.0, Social Learning, Communities of Practice, …

Objective of CELePro


Method: Online Survey Clicks to Survey: 824 Started: 543 (65.9%) Compled: 253 (30.7% resp. 48.1%)



Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation The typical lecturer at a higher education institution in Saxony

Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Demographics (N=253)

• Male (71.1%) Female 26.5%, No answer 2.4%

• 37 years old median (average: 38.55), range: 25–76

• University (70.8%)

• Diploma (37.5%)

• Engineer (42.1%) n= 252

• Research Associate with regular teaching tasks (36.8%)

University of Applied Sciences 25.3%, School of arts 3.6%, Other 0.4%

PhD 31.2%, Habilitation 14.6%, Master 4.3%, Bachelor 1.6% …

Chair 27.7%, Research Associate with sporadic teaching tasks 17.8% …


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Collaboration in Teaching: Information Management Activities

Activity % n

Sharing documents 64.0 162

Creating and editing text 53.8 138

Sharing links & sources 39.1 99

Managing metadata 24.5 62


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Collaboration in Teaching: Communication Activities

Activity % n

Chatting (1:1) 52.2 132

Group notification (1:m) 44.7 113

Group communication (n:m) 34.8 88

Automatic notification 29.2 74

Giving feedback 19.4 49


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Collaboration in Teaching: Relationship Management Activities

Activity % n

Managing his own user profile 34.4 87

Managing contacts 34.0 86


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Usage of Social Software Tools for Teaching (N=253)

Tool Perma-nently often

Some-times

very seldom never

do not know

that tool

Social Networks

2.8% 4.3% 6.3% 9.9% 75.5% 1.2%

Wikis 4.7% 10.7% 16.2% 19.8% 44.3% 4.3%

Weblogs 1.2% 2.0% 6.7% 8.7% 76.3% 5.1%

Micro-blogging

0.4% 1.2% 2.4% 6.7% 84.6% 4.7%

Media Sharing

0.4% 6.3% 14.6% 17.8% 58.9% 2.0%

Social Bookmarking

0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 5.1% 72.3% 19.0%


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Usage of Social Software Tools for Teaching (N=253)

Never! (44.3% Wikis – 84.6% Microblogging)

From comments: eMail, OPAL, telephone, personal contact


Some further results

Poster • What social software

tools are used by collaborative activity?

• Which collaborative activities are performed within teaching tasks?

Data Report (in July)


Conclusions

Collaboration in teaching takes place

… but not by means of Social Software Tools!

Further research?

Case Study ≈ Show Case:

Periodic repetition of the survey?

Thank you! Remarks? Questions?

“It might also be questioned whether cooperation and social media is perhaps attributed a higher potential than they actually have… “ (GMW 13 Reviewer,

11.06.2013)


References

DIN EN ISO/IEC 19796-1 (2009). Informationstechnik – Lernen, Ausbilden und Weiterbilden – Qualitätsmanagement, -sicherung und -metriken – Teil 1: Allgemeiner Ansatz (ISO/IEC 19796-1:2005); Deutsche Fassung EN ISO /IEC 19796-1:2009. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. Berlin: Beuth.

DIN PAS 1032-1 (2004). Aus- und Weiterbildung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von e-Learning – Teil 1: Referenzmodell für Qualitätsmanagement und Qualitätssicherung – Planung, Entwicklung, Durchführung und Evaluation von Bildungsprozessen und Bildungsangeboten. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. Berlin: Beuth.

Ebner, M. & Lorenz, A. (2011). Web 2.0 als Basistechnologien für CSCL-Umgebungen. In Haake, J., Schwabe, G. & Wessner, M. (Hrsg.): CSCL-Kompendium 2.0 (in Vorbereitung). Frankfurt: Oldenbourg.

Freistaat Sachsen. (2011). Personal an den Hochschulen im Freistaat Sachsen 2010. Kamenz. URL: http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/download/100_Berichte -B/B_III_4_j10-Korrektur.pdf


http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/download/100_Berichte-B/B_III_4_j10-Korrektur.pdf







Image Sources

Research – IMG_1367 by Nicola since 1972 (CC-BY). http://www.flickr.com/photos/15216811@N06/6067028560/

The US Brig Niagara arrives at Renaissance Pier by Official U.S. Navy Page (CC-BY) http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/7943246262/

Gerber pocket tool by Pedro Vera (CC-BY) http://www.flickr.com/photos/pvera/24938735/

state of the art by Anthony Easton (CC-BY) http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkmoose/2130792847/

Evaluation Scale by Bill Sodeman (CC-BY-SA) http://www.flickr.com/photos/billsophoto/4175299981/

Blogpost from 15th May 2012 by Sven K. http://blog.svenk.de/4555.html

48/365 by Jiuck (CC-BY-NC-SA) http://www.flickr.com/photos/jiuck/4365662437/

United by Nina Matthews (CC-BY) http://www.flickr.com/photos/21560098@N06/4961187879/

Professor X and Robot by Simon Abrams (CC-BY-ND-SA). http://www.flickr.com/photos/flysi/7350023/


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.de



http://www.flickr.com/photos/15216811@N06/6067028560/



http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/7943246262/




http://www.flickr.com/photos/pvera/24938735/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pvera/24938735/




http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkmoose/2130792847/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkmoose/2130792847/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.de





http://www.flickr.com/photos/billsophoto/4175299981/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/billsophoto/4175299981/

http://blog.svenk.de/4555.html

http://blog.svenk.de/4555.html

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/







http://www.flickr.com/photos/jiuck/4365662437/














http://www.flickr.com/photos/flysi/7350023/

The CELePro Project

• Online Survey • Autumn 2013 • Target Group: Teaching Staff in Saxony • Spreading by

– mailing lists – additional individual eMails to staff of universities

of applied sciences

• Clicks to Survey: 824 • Response Rate: 65.9% • Completion Rate: 48.1% (253)


Representativity?

• Male 71.1%, Female 26.5%, No answer 2.4%

• 37 years old median (average 38.55), range: 25–76

• University 70.8%, University of Applied Sciences 25.3%, School of arts 3.6%, Other 0.4%

Compared to Freistaat Sachsen (2011) 35.0%

Most 40–50, but only information on non-time-limited staff

80.2%

12.0%

4.5%


Representativity?

• Diploma (37.5%), PhD 31.2%, Habilitation 14.6%, Master 4.3%, Bachelor 1.6% …

• Engineer (42.1%) n= 252

• Chair 27.7%, Lecturer 4.7%, Teaching Staff for special tasks 4.3% Research Associate with regular teaching tasks 36.8% + Research Associate with sporadic teaching tasks 17.8% =54.6

Compared to Freistaat Sachsen (2011)

No information

16.8%

1.3% 3.2%

78.7%

24.2%, predominant discipline, lack of medicine staff


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Computer Supported Teaching

The software used for teaching

• … was chosen by himself

• … is hosted by central institutions

• … is exclusively used professionally

• … is backuped automatically or regularely

He feels largely safe concerning legal aspects.


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Teaching Experiences

• 10 Semesters of teaching experiences 0–78, median

• No additional training in teaching (64.4%)

Self assessment:

• (Much) experiences in teaching

• Tends more to established teaching methods than to experimenting

• May arrange his teaching independently


Introducing Mr. Ed Ucation Usage of Social Software Tools for Teaching (N=253, average)

Social Software Tool Average*

Social Networks 4.55

Wikis 4.01

Weblog 4.72

Microblogging 4.88

Media Sharing 4.34

Social Bookmarking 5.06

* Scale: 1: permanently, 2: often, 3: sometimes, 4: very seldom, 5: never, 6: do not know that tool


Social Software Tools Classification by Ebner & Lorenz 2011


Requirements

Analysis Conditions Production Implementation Realization Evaluation

Given by

institutional

regulations

Chosing contents:

• Total amount

• Granularity

Didactics/

Methodology incl.

Consequent

organizational

concepts of

learning

scenarios

Planning of used

tools and media

incl. maintenance

and care

Conception of

tests & exams

Analysis of

Context and

Resources:

• external

• organisational/

institutional

• personell

• Target group

• Equipment

Schedule/

Budgeting

Realization of

content

Implementation of

design and media

Technical

realization incl.

maintenance and

care

• Test,

• adapt and

• publish

Learning

resources

Organize

operation and use

Technical

infrastructure Execution

• Administration

• Activities

• Check

competence

level

• Plan,

• execute and

• verify

Evaluation

Optimization

Concept

The E-Learning Process Model

DIN EN ISO/IEC 19796-1 (2009) DIN PAS 1032-1 (2004).

Education

CELePro: Collaboration in E-Learning Projects