Marianne Georgsens presentation at the Designs for Learning conference 2010

1. ICT as a tool for collaboration
Jacob Davidsen & Marianne Georgsen
eLearning Lab, Aalborg University, Denmark
marianne@hum.aau.dk

2. Agenda
• ICT in teaching and learning in schools –
promises and problems
• The case of ”Move and learn” + our study
• Findings
• Learning to collaboration
• Conclusions… and new questions
2

3. ICT in teaching and learning in schools
– promises and problems
• Political focus on the importance of using ICT in
schools since late 1980’s  ICT can help
develop teaching and learning further
• National evaluation in Denmark shows that ICT
in schools is used in three main ways:
– as a motivator towards pupils (to make learning ”fun”);
– by pupils to produce nice looking products and
presentations;
– but first and foremost to search information on the
internet.
3

4. What is still missing
• To find a way of developing teachers’
qualifications within pedagogic ICT-use
• To relate this development to the teaching
practice and orient it towards actual use of
ICT in classrooms and schools
4

5. 5

6. The case of ”Move and learn”
• Interactive screens are introduced into two
second year classes
• Computers are to be used in all subjects
• Use of technology is aimed at:
– Strenghtening the collaborative skills of the learners,
eg. by fostering communication and shared work in
the classroom
– Enabling multiple learning ”styles” – tactile, auditive
and visual
• 8 computers in two classrooms (20 pupils in
each class)
• Videoobservation with 8 cameras for 9 months
6

7. 7

8. Studying interaction in the classroom
8

9. Interactional patterns in the
learning partnerships
• The learners were very engaged in both solving the
tasks at hand, and using the screens
• Concentration is possible for most learners, even in a
very lively classroom
• Quite often, verbal contributions alone have no impact
on the actions of the learning partner – interaction with
the screen is a must
• Learners often fail to agree on both goals and how to
proceed with the work – very little explicit negotiation
takes place
• Despite having conflicts, the students were dependent
on their partners – some times as an audience
9

10. Levels of interaction in shared work
• Light weight interactions
• Information sharing
• Coordination
• Collaboration
• Cooperation
”Cooperation demands the greatest amount and
the highest quality of communication”
Neale, Carroll & Rosson 2004
10

11. Gender…?
• Numerous instances of an asymmetrical power
relation between girls and boys in the learning
situations
• Stereotypical interpretations of interactional
patterns – boys act up, girls try to solve the
tasks…
• The children compete for the ”toy” (the screen)
– In the classroom setting it seems the girls are
winning, whereas in the school yard more often the
boys will win a fight
11

12. To work in pairs is to collaborate –
or is it…?
• Collaboration seems to be observable in
nearly all cases – but very often this is not
case
• Sharing a tool and a task does not make
collaboration by itself
• In many cases, the word ”collaborate”
seems to a term without sense and
meaning in the context
• A definition of collaboration is needed in
order to teach collaborative skills
12

13. Conclusions
• The way pairs of students are decided on is an important
factor in achieving succesful learning partnerships
• So is the role and the actions of the teacher
• The collaborative potential of the technology and the
setup is not fully exploited
• A shared understanding is needed of the concept of
collaboration and actions related to the practice of
collaborating
• The technology in this setup is a ressource for the
learners as well as for the teacher
• Learner autonomy makes way for the sometimes
conflicting intentions of the learners
13

14. New questions
• What can the teacher do to guide the learners’
participation patterns towards a higher level of
communication and a deeper level of
collaboration?
• What are the potentials of peer learning in the
case of very young learners?
• What are the different roles of the learning
partner – peer; audience; (technical) helper;
other…?
• Is there a novelty factor? Will interactional
patterns change as the interactive screen
become as dull as books?
14