Common Ground: Fostering An Architecture of Participation

ProQuest, 2018

Delivering engaging and rigorous learning experiences in online environments has become a key priority for higher education institutions, driving prolific innovation in tools, pedagogy, and research over the last 20 years. The design and research of collaborative, networked learning experiences in particular has been fueled both by socially-turned theories of learning as well as the meteoric rise of social media and digital networks, which have introduced radical new forms of connectivity and sharing in daily life. In this dissertation, I offer three articles that each focus on one tool in the SuiteC collaborative learning system, a set of interconnected software applications designed to foster peer-to-peer sharing and collaborative, remix composing in a gamified environment. Looking across four semesters of student usage of the SuiteC tools in an online/hybrid undergraduate education course, I employ a mixed-methods approach grounded in “assemblage theory” that leverages learning analytics mined from the SuiteC database, content analysis of student artifacts, and student feedback to explore the kinds of social interactions and collaborations that emerged in the course. Findings suggest best practices and curricular strategies for the design of peer-centered online learning courses, recommendations for software tools, and the utility of assemblage concepts in studying complex sociotechnical systems.

Proceedings of DRS, 2016

We describe an inquiry into how we relate to each other in design, as we design. In particular, we are interested in to what extent, and in what ways, we acknowledge diversity in knowledge, experience, and skill. We have conducted a series of project courses within design education to make students explore different ways of doing design together. Our findings point to two main tendencies: towards cultures of pluralism, of coming together as who we are; and cultures of representation, of coming together as what we are. This points to important issues related to how methodology and process structure the way we perceive and relate to each other. Indeed, in a disciplinary methodological framework ultimately oriented towards convergence and the making of a final design, how do we evolve and engage with that which must not converge to a single point but where difference and diversity must be acknowledged?

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2002

Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). The CALRG aims to support interdisciplinary research by holding symposia and an annual conference to encourage discussion and debate, and the exchange of information on current research work.

2018

Trends and driving forces around us are moving fast in multiple directions. Technical developments in the fields of circular economy, internet of things, bio-based products, robotics, energy and materials are influencing and reshaping our transactional and contextual environment. To create integrated knowledge and practical solutions within these complex environments, the need for multidisciplinary and flexible collaboration is growing. This means that a broad range of disciplines have to work together and integrate their knowledge and competences to achieve interdisciplinary practical solutions. Educational systems need to reorganise to prepare students for work in the complex and dynamic context of the future. Therefore, educational systems must absorb, facilitate and stimulate this mechanism of integration. Useful models for developing an educational integration are Wenger's model of the Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice [1] and the Quintuple Helix model by Carayannis [3] Combining these principles and models into practice, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences needed a different view of how to structure and organise our educational processes, competences, knowledge and resources. In this paper, we describe how we restructured our collaboration within the existing educational system. We studied the effects and outcomes of several principles within the context of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans In ICT Environments, 2012

Research in the interdisciplinary field of human-technology interaction takes many forms and perspectives. However, no matter which lens is used in evaluating the interrelationship between the human and the technology or which technology is being explored, issues of learning, context, use intention, and community form essential components of all research because they are components of all technology use. Of these four components, learning is affected by and affects the other three. In recent decades, strong focus on shared expertise, participatory activities, and other forms of social collectives have moved to the forefront of attention in the fields of learning and work and everyday practices. Theories of learning have increasingly emphasized social forms of learning as opposed to focusing on individual minds (e.g., Greeno, 1998; Stahl, 2005). Socially oriented theories also have been reflected in the field of design, focusing on codesign of applications and environments for groups and communities. In light of these trends, various kinds of collectives, such as networks and communities, have been approached in the research of different disciplines, such as in sociology, educational science, anthropology, and in communication studies. A variety of definitions have been provided for the concept of community (see, e.g., Bruhn, 2005). One of the typical features of traditional local communities is close ties with personal relationships (e.g., Mercer, 2000; Pöysä & Häkkinen, 2009). Today's communities can cross the borders between physical and virtual spaces-especially through the use of social media-as well as across multiple communities simultaneously (Pöysä & Häkkinen, 2009). Moreover, the nature of partnership and sense of belonging to communities might vary. Sometimes the participants prefer looser ties with each other. In those cases, we often refer to these relationships as networks instead of communities. Alternatively, communities can refer to close relationships between participants or among the user practices or interests. Many of these issues are envisioned within the concept of a community of practice, although Li et al. (2009) demonstrated how the definition, goals, and practices of that term continue to evolve and are applied differently. Thus, a relevant question for researchers, technology designers, and implementation advocates is when today's online networks can be called communities. The emphasis on participation, net

Ask students in their first or second semester at college how they would feel about taking a writing course where they should expect to learn less by listening to their instructor and more by working with their classmates, where they won't see their instructor each time the course is scheduled to meet, and where much of their work will be conducted online rather than in the physical proximity of their instructor and fellow classmates. 2 While many students might be excited by the use of technology, we suspect that a good number of these students might pale at the thought. Though what we've mentioned here flies in the face of a traditional teachercentered, or "sage-on-the-stage" pedagogy, we know that, on the whole, composition hasn't been "traditionally taught" for quite some time now. Yet, when we shift our non-traditional ways of teaching to an online delivery system (whether technology-enhanced, hybrid, or totally online) we are asking some students to adapt in ways they hadn't imagined. Pleasantly, we find that many do. Not only do they adapt, but they also learn the material and achieve the course goals, all the while enjoying these "new" methods for learning.

EMBO reports, 2009

http://timreview.ca/article/740 Previous research on living labs has emphasized the importance of users and a real-life environment. However, the existing scholarly discourse lacks understanding of innovation mechanisms in diverse living lab networks, especially from the perspectives of coordination and participation. This study addresses the research gaps by constructing a framework for analyzing coordination (i.e., top-down versus bottom-up) and participation (i.e., inhalation-dominated versus exhalation-dominated) approaches in living lab networks. The classification is based on a literature review and an analysis of 26 living labs in four countries. Given that inhalation and exhalation dominance have not been discussed previously in the innovation literature, the study provides novel ways for both scholars and managers wishing to exploit or explore innovations in living labs. The framework reveals the opportunities for practitioners of innovation with respect to coordination and...