pääsisältö on tietokoneavusteista yhteisöllistä oppimista..

1. Oppimisen uudet mallit
ja teoriat
Jari Laru, yliopisto-opettaja,
Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta, Oulun yliopisto
410014Y Tieto- ja viestintätekniikka pedagogisena työvälineenä 2012
most of images used have been retrieved from commons.wikipedia.org

2. Teoriat taustalla
Yleistä tietotekn.
Opetuskäytöstä
CSCL

3. Isot teoreettiset
linjanvedot ovat
ohjanneet kehitystä..
Teoriat taustalla

4. Behaviorismi (1900-)
Kaikki toimintamme perustuu
käyttäytymiseen, mukaan lukien
toimintamme, ajattelumme ja
tunteemme. Käytöstä voi säädellä
hyvällä ja huonolla palautteella

5. Programmed Instruction was
characterized by:
•clearly stated behavioral objectives
•small frames of instruction
•self-pacing
•active learner response to inserted
questions
•immediate feedback to the
correctness of the response
“Skinner first conceptualized a teaching
http://www.scribd.com/
doc/13551290/Teaching
machine for the classroom for use by
-Machines-SKINNER individual students. This machine could
present information, reinforce
appropriately and then branch to the next
level of difficulty depending on the
individual's performance. The roots of
computer-assisted instruction can
be easily seen in Skinner's teaching
machine.”
5

6. Drill & Practise..

7. Kognitivismi (1950-)
Oppiminen perustuu tietorakenteiden muuttumiseen.
Oppiminen voidaan todeta käytöksestä tai opiskelijan
tuotoksista

8. Konstruktivismi
Oppiminen nähdään laajasti ottaen aktiivisena tietojen,
merkityksien ja käsityksien rakentamisena.
Nykyaikaisten oppimisympäristöjen
taustateoria

9. Oppiminen on erittäin
monimutkainen prosessi
Yksilö
Ympäristö
(konteksti, Yhteisö
välineet ym.)

10. Jean Piaget
Developmental
Psychology,
Constructivism,
Cognitive
Development
Seymort Papert
Artificial Intelligence,
Constructionism, Logo
programming language
Jerome Bruner Alan Kay: Doing with Images Makes Symbols Pt
cognitive psychology 1 (1987).
http://www.archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987
and cognitive learning
theory in educational
psychology
Kay, A. (1990). User Interface: A Personal View. The Art of
HumanComputer Interface Design (pp. 191-207). Addison-
Wesley. http://proteus.fau.edu/practicum/texts/kay.pdf

11. Oppimisympäristö
Kokonaisuus, johon kuuluvat sekä oppijat, opettaja (tai
ohjaaja), tehtävät (ongelmat) ja työväkineet sekä
oppimisen tuloksena syntyvät tulokset
• Tukee oppijoiden syvällistä tietojen ja merkitysten
rakentamista
• Edistää vuorovaikutusta ja keskustelua
• Toteuttaa oppimisen aidoilta tuntuvissa tilanteissa
• Tarjoaa mielekkäitä ja monimutkaisia ongelmia

12. Learning of technology
Tärkeä!
Learning with technology, not from it”
eli tietokoneiden on toimittava
oppimisen apuna ja oppilaiden ajattelun, Learning with technology
vuorovaikutuksen ja toiminnan
virittäjinä, ei tiedon siirtäjinä tai
opettajina sinänsä
Learning with technology

13. Tietotekniikan rooli opetuksessa
(esimerkkejä)
• Monimuotoinen informaatioresurssi
• Apuväline osaamisen konstruoinnissa (esim.
Wikit)
• Autenttisten ympäristöjen rakentaminen
(simulaatiot, virtuaalitodellisuus jne..)
• Sosiaalisen vuorovaikutuksen innoittaja ja
fokusoija (yhteisen viitekehyksen luominen
vuorovaikutuksen ja yhteistyön tueksi esim.
Mobiililaite ryhmätyössä)
• Oppijan älyllisenä partnerina (esim. Älykartat)

14. Keskustele
• Muistele opettajiasi: oliko luokassa käytössä
enemmän behavioristinen vai
konstruktivistinen tapa toimia..?
• Ovatko kokemuksesi tietotekniikan
opetuskäytöstä enimmäkseen tiedon
siirtämistä (materiaalin jakamista jne..) vai
käytettiinkö koneita ajattelun ja
vuorovaikutuksen tukena?

15. YHTEISÖLLINEN OPPIMINEN

16. Collaborative learning /
Collaborative education – ”history”
“Collaborative education in the U.S. began in the 1970s as
a response to the previous decade’s mentality that
students who needed help and didn’t seek this help did not
belong in college. In response to this, colleges began
providing peer tutoring and in-class group work. This led
to the discovery that these forms of collaboration did not
change what people learned, but how they learned”

17. What is collaborative learning?
A coordinated synchronous
activity that is the result of
continued attempt to construct
and maintain a shared
conception of a problem
(Roschelle & Teasley, 1995)
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning.
Collaborative learning Cognitive and computational approaches, 1–16. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared
Citeseer. Retrieved from knowledge in paired problem solving. Computersupported collaborative
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? learning (pp. 69-97). Springer-Verlag.
doi=10.1.1.167.4896&rep=rep1&type=pdf

18. Cooperative vs. Collaborative
Cooperative learning Collaborative learning
• Structure of interaction
designed to facilitate • Collaboration as a philiosophy
accomplishment of an end of interaction and personal
product or goal through lifestyle
people working together in
groups • Ill-structured knowledge
domain
• well-stuctured knowledge
domain • mutual engagement of
participants in a coordinated
• is accomplished by the effort to solve problem
division of labor among together
participants, as an activity
where each person is
responsible for a portion
of the problem solving Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Panitz, 1996; Slavin,
1997; Teasley, 1995

19. Keskustele
• Mieti kokemuksiasi: ovatko ne olleet
yhteistoiminnallisia ja vai yhteisöllisiä
oppimiskokemuksia?
• Oletteko käyttäneet teknologiaa vai
kartonkia?

20. Commonalities
• Learning is active
• The teacher is usually more a facilitator than a “sage on the
stage”
• Teaching and learning are shared experiences
• Students participate in small-group activities
• Students take responsibility for learning
• Students reflect on their own assumptions and thought
processes
• Social and team skills are developed through the give-and-
take of consensus-building
Kirchner, 2001

21. Four instructional motives for the use of
technology in support of collaborative learning
1. To prepare students for the knowledge society
(collaboration skills and knowledge creation
2. To enhance students cognitive performance or
foster deep understanding
3. To add flexibility of time and space for
cooperative/collaborative learning
4. To foster student engagement and keep track of
student cooperative/collaborative work
Resta & Laferriere, 2007

22. Computer-
Supported
Collaborative
Learning
Structure of this section is based on:
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution
of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from
design to orchestration. In Technology-Enhanced Learning.
Principles and products (p. 3-19). Edited by N. Balacheff, S.
Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, T., A. Lazonder & S. Barnes. Springer.
most of images used have been retrieved from commons.wikipedia.org

23. 1.Vuorovaikutuksen
lisääminen kompensoi
yksilöllisen tuen
vähentämisen

24. Tutkimus: parityöskentelyä tietokoneen
äärellä
1983: Key educational principle
1983: Key educational principle
was the adaptation of instruction
was the adaptation of instruction
to individual needs
o individual needs
“it appeared that when
we did have to put two
children in front of a
computer, the results
were actually positive: the
imperfect individualisation
was compensated for by
the benefits of social
interactions”
Dickson, W. & Vereen, M. A. (1983). Two students at one microcomputer. Theory Into Practice, 22(4), 296-300. doi:10.1080/00405848309543077

25. 2. CSCL ei ole teoreettisesti yhtenäinen
kokonaisuus, sen sijaan se hajaantuu ainakin
kahteen “leiriin”
A. Hajautettu kognitio (sosiokognitiivinen)
B. Tilanteisiin sidottu kognitio
(sosiokulturaalinen)

26. 26
A. Sosiokonstruktivismi
• Kaikki ne toiminnot jotka tukevat sosiaalista
vuorovaikutusta ovat välineitä, jotka auttavat yksilöitä
rakentamaan tietoa
http://www.stanford.edu/~roy
pea/RoyPDF
%20folder/A67_Pea_93_DI_C
UP.pdf
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö
Jari Laru, 22.4.2009

27. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in
the wild. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.

28. 28
B. Tilannesidonnainen ja
sosiokulturaalinen konstruktivismi
• Sosiokulturaalisen perspektiivin mukaan sosiaalinen vuorovaikutus ei
ole pelkkä väline, vaan se on olennainen osa ajatteluamme ja siten
opiskelun perimmäinen tavoite
Lave and Wenger provide details of aprrenticeships from among
midvives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, and alcoholics.
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö
Jari Laru, 22.4.2009

29. 3. Raja informaalin ja
formaalin välillä
hämärtyy

30. • CSCL:n yksi erikoispiirre on se, että se on
yhtä aikaa relevantti sekä formaalin että
informaalin oppimisen piireissä, ilman että
nämä kaksi maailmaa olisivat toisistaan
erillisiä
• Runsaasti tutkimuksia, joissa yritetään
siirtää arkielämän (informal) toimintaa
luokkahuoneisiin. Eli pyritään tekemään
kouluista oppivia yhteisöjä (learning
communities) (Bielaczyk & Collins, 1999;
Scardmalia & Bereiter, 1994)

31. computer-supported intentional learning
environments (CSILE)
• aim at reframing classroom discourse to
support knowledge building in ways
extensible to out-of-school knowledge-
advancing enterprises and make school
education more situated (Lave &
Wenger, 1991).
• In one scenario, records made at the
place of work (knowledge in action)
"ground" reflective activities in the
http://www.ikit.org/fulltext/CSILE_KF.pdf classroom. (Scardamalia & Bereiter,
1994)

32. Let’s Go Water Quality
Trial
http://vimeo.com/11739878

33. Keskustele
• Onko teillä kokemusta informaalin
(ympäristö, koti) ja formaalin(koulu)
yhdistämisestä?
• Millaisia projektit voisivat olla?

34. 4. Kollaboratiivinen
oppiminen ei ole
“resepti”

35. 35
Tärkeimpiä tutkimuskysymyksiä
CSCL:n opetuskäytössä
• Kollaboraatio itsessään ei synnytä oppimistuloksia; se on
riippuvaista siitä kuinka ryhmät sitoutuvat vuorovaikutukseen
• Tutkijoita laajalti kiinnostava kysymys on: mitkä ovat ne
olosuhteet jossa CSCL ympäristö tukee tehokkaasti oppimista
(Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley, 1996)
– Missä olosuhteissa spesifit vuorovaikutusprosessit tapahtuvat?
– Mitä vuorovaikutusprosesseja voidaan pitää oppimista ennakoivina?
• Kolme oppimista edistävää oppimisprosessia
– Selittäminen
– Argumentointi / väittely
– Yhteisen ymmärryksen hakeminen
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö
Jari Laru, 22.4.2009

36. The key consequence is at design level:
the purpose of a CSCL environment is
not simply to enable collaboration across
distance but to create condition in which
effective group interactions are expected to
occur

37. Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
Learning Learning Metacognition Self-regulated Learning design Social media in
infrastructures communities learning learning
Lecture Lecture Lecture Lecture Lecture Lecture
1 day
Collaborative
Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion
e
Phototaking Phototaking Phototaking Phototaking Phototaking Phototaking
6 days
Solo
Blogging Blogging Blogging Blogging Blogging Blogging
luate
1 day
Discussion (week 4) Discussion (week 9)
Collaborative
ct
Wikiwork (weeks 4-12)
ISSN 1096-7516, DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004
case study in the higher education contex
Learning design example: Supporting small-
group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A
Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context, The Internet and
Jari Laru, Piia Naykki, Sanna Jarvela, Supporting small-group learning using multiple
Higher Education, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 28 August 2011,

38. 5. Median tehokkuus
itseisarvona on myytti

39. Over-expectations with to respect to
its intrinsic effects on learning
• ” … This is perhaps not surprising because the same
claims have been made about every new technology
developed in the last century. For example, when the
motion picture, radio, and television were
invented, each was hailed as answer to solving
educational problems” (Heinich, 1979; Cuban, 1986;
Mayer, 1999).
• ”Instructional methods make the difference in how well
students learn, not the message or the delivery
technology” (Clark, 1983)

40. 40
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö
Jari Laru, 22.4.2009

41. 41
Example: FLE3mobile & mlearning
Overall, the analyses revealed
nonparticipative behaviour within the
online community. The social network
analysis revealed structural holes and
sparse collaboration among participants in
the offline community. It was found that
due to their separated practices in the
offline community, they did not have a need
for mobile collaboration tools in their
practices
Laru, J. & Jarvela, S. (2008). Social Patterns in Mobile
Technology Mediated Collaboration among Members of the
Professional Distance Education Community. Educational
Media International, 45(1), 17-32

42. 6.Tärkeintä on saada
aikaan tilanteita joissa
osapuolet etsivät
yhteistä ymmärrystä

43. AVAINKYSYMYS
• Kuinka saavuttavat jaetun ymmärryksen siitä
kuinka tehtävä suoritetaan?
• CSCL määritelmä: “Roschelle & Teasley (1995)
kollaboratiivinen oppiminen on jaetun
ymmärryksen rakentamista yhdessä”
• => Grounding: mekanismi jossa osapuolet
koittavat ymmärtää mitä toiset sanoivat ja
pyrkivät korjaamaan väärinymmärrykset

44. .. Grounding on hankalaa
• Osapuolet eivät koskaan saavuta täysin jaettua
ymmärrystä.
• => konvergessivaiheiden kautta osapuolet
löytävät uusia eroja, joista pitää keskustella jne.
• during cycle of divergence/convergence phases,
what matters is not only final result but also
effort towards shared under understanding
(swartch, 1995)

45. ..prosessia voidaan
hankaloittaa tarkoituksella
• Näkökulmien eroja (divergence) voidaan lisätä
tarkoituksella ja täten lisätä tehtävän
haasteellisuutta (CSCL scripts, e.g. arguegraph,
jigsaw)
Arguegraph
Jigsaw

46. CSCL Environments..
• ..combine divergence and convergence
functionalities: e.g. shared representations and
visual identification of individual contributions or
viewpoints (awareness tools)
Mindmap tool as shared representation: Näykki & Järvelä Group awareness widget, Kreijns, kirchner & johchems
(2008). (2002)

47. Case Flyers & fieldtrip
A B Story snippet 1
Research question
Story snippet 1 Snippet types
Date / time
Grounding
Task
Iintroduction
Task feedback
Story Story snippet text
Conclusion
Snippet 1/1
A B C D
Subject: research question
Research question
Group: name, task: #
Date / time
Caim: We claim
Other research
qu..
Sending off Ground: Because we see Date / time
Warrant: textbook says Story snippet 1
Date / time
Image placed here
Laru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. B. (2010). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a
biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: a case study with K-12 Group 1 Other groups
learners. Interactive Learning Environments

48. 7. Kasvokkain
tapahtuvan
vuorovaikutuksen
jäljittely ei ole
välttämättä hyväksi..

49. Imitation bias
• “is the belief that the more a medium
resembles face-to-face interaction, the better”
(Hollan & Stornetta, 1992)
• Media richness is also erranously considered to
predit effectiviness, despite empirical counter-
evidence:
• video-supported collaborative work vs.
audio-only collaborative work. => not
necessarily better

50. Example of media
effectiviness
Traditional virtual learning environments - e.g. Optima &
Blackboard

51. ..Actually, technology
benefits are elsewhere
• CSCL Question is no longer “how to
compensate for not being face-to-face” (~
was topic 20 years ago)
• Now it is “How to fulfil collaborative
functionalities that are not available in
face-to-face situations” (Haake, 2006)

52. ..new features apply to: 1. computer
mediated communication
• making it different from face-to-face
Gstudy / Learning Kit - http://learningkit.sfu.ca/index.html
nstudy - http://learningkit.sfu.ca/lucb/celc-2009-nStudy.pdf
nstudy ohjeita (LET) -
Future Learning Environment 3 - fle3.uiah.fi
http://www.slideshare.net/LEToulu/ohjeet-nstudy

53. ..new features apply to: 2.
augmenting face-to-face situations
“Traditional learning
technologies fit with students
who sit on a chair in front of a
table with a computer in a quiet
environment. What is the
potential of learning
technologies for students who
move all the time, carry objects,
may have dirty hands and work
in a noisy environment? Are
Leading House - DUAL T project: Integrating technologies in heterogeneous learning technologies irrelevant
contexts, CRAFT-EPFL Switzerland for them or should we develop
new ways to use technologies
that are more appropriate to
these contexts?”
Tinkertable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSwuyM4WkN4
Tinkersheets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bms4_i9DI2g&feature=related

54. ..new features apply to: 2.
augmenting face-to-face situations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxdoKsjQbyw

55. 8. Tehtävien sisällöt
tukevat myös suullista
vuorovaikutusta

56. Representations &
verbal interactions
• The way representations shape social
interactions is referred to by Suthers and
Hundhausen (2003) as “representational
guidance”
• such cognitive tools not only shape social
interactions but, if they get internalized, also
shape the way students reason about the
domain (Kuutti & Kaptelin, 1997)

57. Case Flyers & fieldtrip
A B Story snippet 1
Research question
Story snippet 1 Snippet types
Date / time
Grounding
Task
Iintroduction
Task feedback
Story Story snippet text
Conclusion
Snippet 1/1
A B C D
Subject: research question
Research question
Group: name, task: #
The way representations shape social Date / time
Caim: We claim
interactions is referred to by Suthers Other research
qu..
Sending off Ground: Because we see Date / time
and Hundhausen (2003) as Story snippet 1
Warrant: textbook says
“representational guidance” Image placed here
Date / time
Laru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. B. (2010). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a
biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: a case study with K-12 Group 1 Other groups
learners. Interactive Learning Environments

58. Examples I
such cognitive tools not only shape
social interactions but, if they get
internalized, also shape the way
students reason about the domain
(Kuutti & Kaptelin, 1997)
Microworlds - Roschelle & Teasley, 1995
Beldevere argumentation tool - Suthers, Weiner,
Connelly & Paolucci, 1995

59. Examples II
such cognitive tools not only shape
social interactions but, if they get
internalized, also shape the way
students reason about the domain
(Kuutti & Kaptelin, 1997)

60. 9.Vuorovaikutuksen
tukeminen
(strukturointi) on aina
kompromissi

61. Semi-structured
interfaces
• Semi-structured communication
tools aim to scaffold productive
interactions by making them easier:
for instance “sentence openers”,
such as “please explain why”
• It’s example of flexible structuring -
students have freedom to use or not
to use the available widgets
• Poor results (e.g. Baker & Lund,
1997)

62. Solution: CSCL scripts
Scripts originate from the fact that it is
difficult to predict the effects of
collaborative learning by controlling
external conditions such as group
composition or task features.
Actually, the effects of collaborative
learning depend on the quality of
interactions that take place among group
members.
Therefore, scripts aim to enhance the
probability that knowledge generative
interactions such as conflict resolution,
explanation or mutual regulation occur
during the collaboration process.

63. Different scripts
• A macro-script sets up conditions in which
argumentation should occur, as in the ArgueGraph,
for instance by pairing students with opposite
opinions.
• A micro-script scaffolds the interaction process
per se: when a learner brings an argument, the
script will for instance prompt his or her peer to
state a counter-argument (Kollar et al, in press)
• For both micro- and macro-scripts, the right level
of scaffolding is a subtle compromise between the
need for structuring and the risk of over-scripting
(dillenbourg, 2002)

64. Arguegraph script

65. 10.Vuorovaikutuksen
analyysi voidaan joko
osittain tai kokonaan
automatisoida

66. • The degree of processing of these
interactions varies from mirroring to
guiding (Jermann, Soller & Muhlenbrock,
2001)

67. Mirroring: noise sensitive table
• The table, Reflect, addresses
the issue of unbalanced
participation during group
discussions. By displaying on
its surface a shared
visualization of member
participation, Reflect is meant
to encourage participants to
avoid the extremes of over-
and under-participation.
An Interactive Table for Supporting Participation Balance in Face-to-Face Collaborative LearningBachour, Khaled ; Kaplan,
Frédéric ; Dillenbourg, Pierre Accepted in: IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3ltvIERD4 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2010.
ISSN: 1939-1382

68. Guiding
• More complex analyses enable CSCL environments
provide feedback to groups or even to suggest
changes regarding to their teamwork
Towards an Automatic Measure of Transactivity in On-line D
Towards an Automatic Measure of Transactivity in On-line D
log-data AI techniques (such as planning,
machine learning, intelligent
agent approaches, semantic web
techniques, and others) have been
proposed to tackle the challenging
issues emerging when trying to
model and manage the complexity
text, videos etc of the collaborative learning
activity. methods
Puntambekar, Sadhana; Erkens, Gijsbert; Hmelo-Silver, Cindy (Eds.) Analyzing Interactions in CSCL
Methods, Approaches and Issues- Series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol. 100 1st
Edition., 2010, 400 p. 50 illus., Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4419-7709-0 Due: January 29, 2011

69. http://www.slideshare.net/erik.duval/learning-dashboards

70. 11. Siirtymä henkilöiden
välisten (interpersonal)
tietokoneiden käyttöön
on käynnissä

71. 2008: interpersonal computers
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/3-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-
perusteet-tietokoneavusteinen-yhteisllinen-oppiminen-cscl
http://www.fkaplan.com/file/c
aif-interpersonal.doc
Kaplan, F., DoLenh, S., Bachour, K., Kao, G. Y.-ing, Gault, C., Dillenbourg, P.,
Huang, J., et al. (2009). Interactive Artifacts and Furniture Supporting
Collaborative Work and Learning (Vol. 10, pp. 1-17). Boston, MA: Springer
US. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxr3q7t022751275/

72. Tangibles Roomware
Tangibles
http://www.youtube.com/watch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GWUx3ZSMw
v=5UPiFeJhwS4
Phidgets Wearables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLU4GS7zAI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXM6paYOME

73. First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
Multi-input devices
Computers with multiple mices
Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., & Toyama, K. (2006). Multiple mice for computers in education in
developing countries. In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM ICTD 2006.
http://www.webtlk.com/2008/12/19/how-to-install-multiple-mice-mouse-and-keyboards-on-the-same-
computer/

74. First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
Tangible objects & interfaces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPiFeJhwS4

75. First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
Roomware
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=baDJNtBT1Fg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U05WeXPGlk

76. Conclusions

77. Summary
• CSCL environment is not simply a tool to
support communication among remote
students but a tool used in both co-
presence and distance settings for shaping
verbal interactions in several ways and for
capturing, analyzing and mirroring these
interactions in realtime

78. CSCL in short
From PPT by Jermann, P. Scripting collaboration with ManyScripts http://manyscripts.epfl.ch/

79. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLC8Ew8J9Hg

80. CSCL:n alle mahtuu lukuisa joukko
”muodikkaita malleja”
- flipped classroom
- blended learning
- personal learning environments
- seamless learning
- ilmiöpohjainen oppiminen
Näistä laitan esitykset wikiin luentosetin
yhteyteen..