work and learning across boundaries: artifacts, discourses, and processes in a university course

1

Work and Learning across Boundaries:

Artifacts, Discourses, and Processes in a University Course

19th International Conference on Collaboration and Technology (CRIWG)

October 30–November 01, 2013 Wellington, New Zealand

Mikhail Fominykh, Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland, Sobah Abbas Petersen, and Monica Divitini

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

2

Trondheim, Norway

3

Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU

4

Motivation and challenges: Learning and Cooperation

o Project group work – significant part in university education – often required in a workplace

o Students – Small groups • large communities – Collocated • distributed – Homogeneous • diverse

o Cooperation – Facilitation of the creative process – Frustrations and disruptions

5

Goals: Improving collaboration and learning with boundary objects

o Explorative study – using boundary objects in a new context – university

course (collaborative activities) – observing student cooperation across boundaries – observing the use of cooperation technology tools

o Implications – cooperation support across boundaries in a social

learning system, e.g. why boundary objects are important, how to facilitate their creation and what technologies to choose

6

Background: Boundary objects and social learning systems

o Boundary objects: – serve groups or communities in situations where each

participant has only partial knowledge and partial control over the interpretation of an object

– perform a brokering role involving “translation, coordination, and alignment among the perspectives of different Communities of Practice” (Fischer, 2001)

– Artifacts, discourses, processes (Wenger, 2000) – Organizations, communities of practice, communities of

interest

o Rarely used in pure educational settings

7

Study: Cooperation Technology course

o Elective course o Credits: ETCS 7.5 o Grade: 70% groups project + 30%

essay o Duration: 13 weeks o Participants: 31 fourth year master

students (seven groups 3–5)

9

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

Course activities

Collaborative writing + presentation in 3D virtual world

Creating a language dictionary + a glossary

Collaborative writing + f2f presentation / web-conferencing

Types of collaboration

Local group Local group + local community

Local group + international

Types of boundaries

Between individuals Between local groups Between international groups

Assigned technologies

vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot Wiki, Prezi

Main outcomes

Handbook of cooperation tools + 3D recordings

Language dictionary + glossary of terms

Online media handbook on ed. tech.

Study: Course Activities

10


Course activities







Types of boundaries




Main outcomes




Study: Types of collaboration

11


Course activities







Types of boundaries




Main outcomes




Study: Types of boundaries

12


Course activities







Types of boundaries




Main outcomes




Study: Assigned technologies

13


Course activities







Types of boundaries




Main outcomes




Study: Main outcomes

14

Study: Data Sources and Analysis

Data sources – direct observation of students’ activities online and

their recordings – the virtual artifacts the students created – user feedback: questionnaires, group reflection

notes, semi-structured interviews, and individual essays

Data analysis – Constant comparative method: coding with nVivo

15

Examples of student projects


Main outcomes




17

e.g., http://www.vacademia.com/record/detailed/2100

18

http://simola.org/lingobee/index.php?gid=28 http://simola.org/lingobee/index.php?gid=29

19 http://cocreat.purot.net/

20

Results: Boundary objects

Seeding

Facilitating creation

Boundary objects Shared

artifacts

Shared discourses

Shared processes

21

Boundary objects as artifacts

Seeded artifacts – task description – template for the expected outcome – assigned tools and their repositories

Created artifacts – additional tools used for construction – major outcomes

22

Boundary objects as discourses

Seeded discourses – shared descriptions of local courses – knowing each other beforehand (local groups) – assigned LMS (only Task 1) – introductory meetings (only Task 3)

Created discourses – additional tools used for supporting the process – good atmosphere – similar motivation levels – gradual adoption of joint communication norms

23

Boundary objects as processes

Seeded processes – scaffolding and tutoring – expert reviews and peer-reviews

Created processes – planning and coordination – group cohesiveness – extensive use of tools for supporting the process – procedures of giving and receiving feedback between

the groups

24

Implications: Trends and challenges (1/7)

Successful collaboration in a diverse group requires more complex boundary

objects.

25


The lack of clear leadership in such a group may lead to breakdowns in collaboration and limited use of

boundary objects.

26


Initial creation of boundary objects as artifacts will normally benefit from a template or a pre-defined structure.

27


Boundary objects as discourses are crucial in international, large, and

distributed groups, but challenging to establish.

28


Creation of boundary objects as processes requires direct external

support on both the intergroup and international levels.

29


Cooperation technology tools may play the role of boundary objects as artifacts, discourses, and processes.

30


Allowing a certain degree of freedom in constructing boundary objects

benefits both learning and group work.

31

Implications: Boundary objects

Seeding

Facilitating creation

Boundary objects Shared

artifacts

Shared discourses

Shared processes

32

Observations Implications and recommendations

Difficulties in starting collaboration in tasks 2 and 3 (using different tools was a common reason)

Creating initial shared artifacts to establish a common understanding between sub-groups or individuals

A single main course environment (LMS) was not used too much

Establishing shared group spaces / tools / artifacts to mediate activities with one major and several accompanying technological platforms with appropriate means

Seeding boundary objects as shared artifacts

33


Use of different tools for working on the same documents and discussing them on other platforms

Linking and annotating versions of boundary objects across different media

Use of familiar tools even if the new tool was more effective

Providing instructions to make full use of its potentials and a list of alternatives

Facilitating creation of boundary objects as shared artifacts

34


Materials about the foreign groups were useful, but not sufficient

Introducing boundary objects in advance, including shared curriculum, study materials, and goal descriptions

The joint meetings were useful, but the students struggled organizing them.

Conducting scheduled joint activities, especially in the beginning

Problems with understanding collaborators and explaining own point of view across different disciplines

Establishing designated shared information spaces for reference materials

Seeding boundary objects as shared discourses

35


Problems reaching a common understanding of the tasks and roles Students appreciated the presence of tutors at the meetings.

Providing moderator assistance during meetings/negotiations

Problems starting collaboration without knowing all the peers and their communication habits.

Conducting scheduled “ice-breaking” activities, especially in the beginning

Communication improved after introducing familiar tools

Providing mechanisms for mapping workspaces and social networks

Facilitating creation of boundary objects as shared discourses

36


Problems understanding the task, especially when international sub-groups were involved

Providing task descriptions with clear instructions on the process, including possible roles

Problems in finding time when all members can meet

Securing time slots when all participants can be available for joint activities

Missing feeling of team spirit, especially in international teams

Conducting regular activities in the designated group spaces

Problems finding a suitable tool for supporting collaboration in larger groups

Providing assistance with complex boundary objects (e.g., groupware tools)

Seeding boundary objects as shared processes

37


Use familiar tools for organizing the collaborative process (those who chose learning new tools did not regret)

Providing designated tools that are familiar to majority of the students to increase efficiency, and exposing students to unknown tools to allow them learn

Individuals (or sub-groups) had different level of motivation, and this caused problems with participation and commitment.

Motivating students in identifying roles and developing a set of rules/“working contract”

Problems identifying a leader Providing assistance (e.g., assigning roles) when no clear leaders available

Facilitating creation of boundary objects as shared processes

38

o Exploring how boundary objects facilitate group work and learning in educational context – Identifying learning opportunities provided by the

boundaries – Suggesting how to facilitate cooperative processes by

seeding appropriate boundary objects and supporting their creation during group work

o Continuing exploring boundary objects in educational settings

Conclusions and future work

39

Thank you!

Mikhail Fominykh [email protected]

Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland [email protected]

Sobah Abbas Petersen [email protected]

Monica Divitini [email protected]

http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~fominykh/

http://www.linkedin.com/in/fominykh

http://slideshare.net/mfominykh/

work and learning across boundaries: artifacts, discourses, and processes in a university course

Education