Presentation shared by author at the 9th EDEN Research Workshop "Forging new pathways of research and innovation in open and distance learning: Reaching from the roots" held on 4-6 October 2016, in Oldenburg, Germany. Find out more on #EDENRW9 here: http://www.eden-online.org/2016_oldenburg/

1. @isaja
Prof. Dr. Isa Jahnke
EDEN Research WS
October, 6, 2016
Studying Learning Expeditions
in CrossActionSpaces with
Digital Didactical Designs

2. @isaja
iSchool.missouri.edu & EdTech.missouri.edu
Educational Technology – Master study program @ Mizzou
fully online (started 1999 with first course online)

3. @isaja

4. @isaja
My research (selection)
in higher education
- InPUD, technology-embraced informal-in-formal learning
(Germany, NRW grant), 2001-2004 (-2009) (Jahnke, 2012)
- DaVINCI, creativity in higher ed (German BMBF grant) 2008-2011
(Jahnke, Haertel, & Wildt, 2015)
- PeTEX , Remote Labs in Engineering Education (EU, European Commission grant)
(Jahnke et al., 2010, Terkowsky et al., 2011)
- GoogleGlass project in higher education, Eva Marell-Ohlsson
(Jahnke, Marell-Ohlsson, Meitoft, 2016)
- LeX, Augmented Learning eXpeditions (started 2015, University of Missouri)
(Ringbauer et al., 2016)
in K-12
- iPad studies (Swedish, VR funded, 2014-2016)
(Jahnke et al., 2014)
Interdisciplinary: Social Sciences, Computer
Science, Educational Sciences
Intercultural: Germany, Sweden, USA

5. @isaja
Question to you
Who is using a device with Internet access?
Perfect!

6. @isaja
Web-enabled technologies (tablets, wearables…)
change ways and conditions for human/social interaction***:
how we communicate, share, receive information, collaborate,
network, ...

7. @isaja
Human interaction -> crossaction
(I look at interaction as a form of communication – N. Luhmann)
Crossaction
• The example of conferences
when participants use Twitter
• Humans connect to each other’s resources,
• no clear difference between offline and online,
• ’in’ different places at same time (Instagram, Twitter, …).
Photo: Ralf Jahnke-Wachholz
Floridi, 2014
Jahnke, 2016

8. @isaja
Classroom
/ School
Classroom
/ School
Digital classroom:
Spaces Merging
We go to school
because of
getting access to learning processes
Twitter, FB,
GroupApps, …
Interactive/Live
Broadcasting, …
Websites,
Blogs, …
and
more
Traditional classroom:
Separation
We went to school
because of
getting access to information
View 1: Classroom perspective CrossActionSpaces

9. @isaja
Online
Course
(Canvas,
Moodle,…)
Online
Course
(Canvas,
Moodle,…)
Spaces Are
Merging
Learners apply classroom themes to the
material world (communities)
in which they are living
Twitter, FB,
GroupApps, …
Interactive/Live
Broadcasting, …
Websites,
Blogs, …
and
more
Traditional:
Separation
Online vs. material world around the
learners
View 2: Online classroom perspective
Material
world
Material
world
CrossActionSpaces

10. @isaja
What ‘is’ learning (cognitive, but socially framed)
in crossactionspaces?
Photo: Ralf Jahnke-Wachholz
Reflections = people interact, make choices
and decisions and can explain why they are
doing it what they are doing, and why this is
useful for their learning progress
• reflective doing of multiply crossactions
• reflective performance of crossactions
• reflective communication
Jahnke, 2016

11. @isaja
Learning Expeditions
How to design for Learning in
CrossActionSpaces?
Learners use classroom themes and connect them
to the (socio-)material world in which they are living:
Design for Learning Expeditions (Ringbauer et al.,
2016; Jahnke & Norberg, 2013), Sociomateriality
(Tessy Ceratto-Pargman et al., 2015)

12. @isaja
What kinds of ‘designs for learning’ are
applied/supported in the practice of online classes
and in crossactionspaces?
Surface/shallow learning (focus on remembering)?
Deeper Learning?
Meaningful learning?
Creative learning?
…
The Research View

13. @isaja
Theoretical lens
Design is the act of giving a form to something
Teaching is the ’design act’ of creating conditions for
learning; more specific, it is the act of modelling
sociotechnical-pedagogical
processes/’workflows’ to enable student learning
Designs for Learning
Bonderup-Dohn & Hansen, 2014
Jahnke, Norqvist, & Olsson, 2014

14. @isaja
Digital
Didactical
Design
3 layers
affect each
other
ICT ICT
ICT
ICT
Student
Teacher
Content
Teaching
objectives
Pro.-
Assessment/Feedback
Learning
activities
Academic staff
development
Curriculum (+exams)
development
Institutional strategies
1 Didactical
Interactions
2 Digital
Didactical Design
3 Didactical
Conditions

15. @isaja
1
Teaching goals
Intended Learning Outcomes
Learning
activities Process-based
Assessment
Feedback/guided reflections
(by peers, teachers,
self-reflections)
social relations/roles
Web-enabled
technologies
Digital Didactical Design - 5 components

16. @isaja 1
DDD component Description of Coding scheme
Character of
Teaching goals and
intended/expected learning
outcomes (Intended Learning
Outcomes): clear and visible?
TA/ILO
1= Not clear, not visible, no communication about teaching aims or learning intentions; focus on content
2=
3= Oral communication
4=
5= Teaching aims are clear and visible for students; intended learning outcomes in forms of development of skills; a source is
available where the students can go and read aims and objectives; at best, co-aims of students are included, students know the
criteria for learning progress (available right form the start).
Character of
Learning activities: towards
producing in engaged,
authentic, deep, open settings?
LA
1= Students hear what teachers read from the textbook (surface learning only; e.g. remembering/ repetition of facts); theoretical
problems without connecting it to a real world problem
2=
3= In-between (…) – signs are: students are not so engaged, too much time for doing other things (e.g. playing cards instead)
4=
5= Learning activities have a range from surface to deep learning: students produce something, engaged classrooms, collaboration
with peers; the activities are connected to the students world and include a real-world problem (e.g. everyday experience); a real
audience, students critically reflect on existing content (e.g. evaluating/creating/making), relate knowledge to new knowledge;
“organize and structure content into coherent whole” (Marten & Säljö, 1979), students are engaged in producing, using the
Internet or other sources beyond the physical school walls (signs of crossactions)
Character of assessment:
process-based?
ASM
1 = Feedback only at the end (summative feedback); character of the feedback is rather summative, not formative
2=
3= Feedback during the class (not only technical help) by coincidence; teacher only gives feedback when they ask for support;
passive support
4=
5= Criteria for a learning progress are visible for students from the beginning of the learning process; Feedback/feed-forward at
the end but mainly process-based assessment for learner’s development; a plan exists for how the teacher creates pro-assessment
(formative evaluation); a range of forms such as self-assessment; peer-reflective learning and feedback by the teacher, e.g. students
document learning (electronically; a map or text, etc.), the teacher asks them to go back and reflect.
Character of
Social relations: multiple
roles (not only consumers?)?
RO
1= Teacher is in the traditional role of the expert only; students are only seen as consumers (of solving closed questions and tasks
where only one correct answer is possible)
2=
3= Teacher is in 1-2 roles but spends majority of time as expert; teacher does not support student engagement to be active
4=
5= TEACHER plays different roles, e.g., expert, process mentor, learning-companion, coach, she fosters students to be in different
roles such as consumers, producers, collaborators, critical reflectors, etc.; teacher engages students; teacher activates the students
to change their roles; STUDENTS are in several roles, e.g. teachers for their peers, finding own learning aims, creating own
learning tasks, etc., teacher supports student reflection of roles and development of new roles.
Character of Web-enabled
technology/ tablets for cross-
actions?
TAB
1= Low extent, drill and practice; students work primarily alone when using technology, not related to the real world (e.g.,
technology is substitute for pen and paper)
2=
3= Medium extent (e.g., new technology is substitute for existing media; for example, tablet substitutes a laptop)
4=
5= High extent, multimodal, beyond writing texts, camera app, digital paintings, apps for collaborative creation; students
construct, share, create, publish their knowledge (to a real audience); students use online resources, actively select topics beyond
the limitations of even the best school library, signs of crossaction (using online world to solve a learning activity).

17. @isaja
Social Relations,
Multiple Roles:
From 1 to many &
Student is agent
Learning
activities:
(From shallow to
deep learning)
Teaching goals:
From non-clear to
clear and visible
Outer circle=5
Inner circle=1
From teacher-led classrooms (inner circle)
to
meaningful learner-centered practice (outer circle)
Mobile Technology
Integration:
From substitution to
multimodal
Process-based
Assessment:
From summative to formative

18. @isaja
Learning
activities
Process-based
Assessment
iPad
integration
Social Relations,
Roles
Teaching
goals
ID 11 Physics class

19. @isaja
ID 12 creating a digital pres
(geography)
Learning
activities
Process-based
Assessment
iPad
integration
Social Relations,
Roles
Teaching
goals

20. @isaja
ID 19 creating a timeline
Learning
activities
Process-based
Assessment
iPad
integration
Social Relations,
Roles
Teaching
goals

21. @isaja
Cluster A (23 in total) new teaching practice toward
meaningful learning by crossaction; new instructional
designs
Cluster B (21 cases) on the way but sticky
Cluster C (20 in total) conflicting, trapped in traditional
designs
3 clusters...

22. @isaja
2
… and 2 Patterns across clusters
Pattern A: 40 cl.
across all layers/clusters
(focus on TAB and LA
Pattern B: 3 cl.
(focus on ASM and TAB)

23. @isaja
The university of the future…
is made of crossactionspaces, in which
teaching is organized in project teacher teams
across existing disciplines
(Eva Mårell’s GoogleGlas project: involving 3 different study programs)
teacher teams from different departments work together and
design a Learning expedition – and the students develop learning expeditions
- learning by topic / not by subject

24. @isaja
Dr. Isa Jahnke, Associate Professor and
Director of Research for the Information Experience Lab
at the iSchool
Email
jahnkei@missouri.edu
Website
http://www.isa-jahnke.com
My book
Routledge, 2016