delingskultur, sosial web og læring

Transcription

delingskultur, sosial web og læring
dk-2008-3.book Page 153 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
DELINGSKULTUR, SOSIAL WEB OG LÆRING
In the electric age, when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve
us in the whole of mankin and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily
participate ... in the consequences of our every action.
Marshall McLuhan, 1964
Både PC-en og Internett er ifølge Zittrain (2008) skapt gjennom leken eksperimentering,
ikke minst sprunget ut av ikke-kommersielt motivert akademisk forskning. Gjennom
kreativ delingskultur genereres bruksområder utenfor opphavsmennene og produsentenes
ambisjoner og kontroll. PC var opprinnelig uten innhold da den ble sluppet løs, men fikk
mening og nyttig innhold ved at andre enn produsenten utviklet programmer og tjenester. Idag er maskinene sterkere og nettene raskere. Faren nå – ifølge Zittrain – er lukkede
systemer, programmer og maskiner. Det er viktig at vi brukere ikke bare er passive konsumenter, men aktivt deltagende. Sosial web og utvikling av digital kompetanse er viktig for
den enkelte og en forutsetning for videre utvikling av en delingskultur.
Internetts dynamiske utvikling er en plattform for innovasjon og delingskultur, og
handler i seg selv om delingskultur. Den digitale generasjonen er en av driverne i denne
delingskulturen. En omfattende studie av amerikanske ungdommers bruk av digitale medier, gjennomført ved University of California, viser at tenåringer lever og lærer gjennom
de nye digitale mediene: «Social network sites, online games, video-sharing sites, and
gadgets such as iPods and mobile phones are now fixtures of youth culture. They have so
permeated young lives that it is hard to believe that less than a decade ago these technologies barely existed. Today’s youth may be coming of age and struggling for autonomy and
identity as did their predecessors, but they are doing so amid new worlds for communication, friendship, play, and self-expression» (Ito, 2008).
Nettsamfunn er sosiale arenaer, som også endrer måten vi sosialiserer på. I et nettsamfunn registrerer brukerne seg med navn eller kallenavn, bilde av seg selv, og annen informasjon de ønsker å dele med andre. Brukerne bygger nettverk ved å melde seg inn i grupper, eller fortelle hvem de er venner med. Typiske eksempler er Facebook og Nettby.
Wikier er en betegnelse på tekstsamlinger som oppdateres og utvikles av flere mennesker
uten at noen «eier» sidene. For ungdom har Internett blitt en møteplass, der de knytter
sosiale bånd, bygger nettverk og deler informasjon og opplevelser. For skolen kan sosiale
nettsteder gi eksempler på fremtidens læringsarenaer, både for elever og lærere.
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
153
dk-2008-3.book Page 154 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Under ITUs konferanse om sosial web og læring kommenterte flere innledere at skolen og sosial web er i utakt. I norske skoler finnes det to poler i debatten om sosial web og
læring. Noen skoler ønsker å stenge sosial web ute, mens andre prøver ut læringspotensialet i for eksempel wiki og Facebook. Neil Selwyn fra London Knowledge Lab er skeptisk
til skolens evne til å henge med i den digitale utviklingen. De må følge med, vite hva som
skjer og bruke det som er relevant som pedagogisk hjelpemiddel. Politikere og byråkrater
begeistres lett og har store vyer om digitale løsninger. Sosial web alene løser ikke alle pedagogiske utfordringer. Elever må også lære på tradisjonelt vis for å opparbeide evne til
problemløsning og kritisk tenkning. Alle som arbeider i skolen må beherske den digitale
utviklingen for å forstå ungdom, men det behøver ikke å bety at nettsamfunnenes struktur skal inn i skolen.
Selwyn er opptatt av undervisningssystemene må «reskolere seg, ikke deskolere seg».
Skolene må hele tiden justere seg, men ikke abdisere som et sted hvor det også skal legges
egne premisser for læring: «Whilst many technologists are happy to argue for a deschooling of society, this presentation contends that there is little sense in denying the permanence of the school in late-modern capitalist society. Rather we need to seek to reconcile
schooling with the challenges of digital technology, and explore opportunities for a realistic re-imagining of the nature of digital technologies and – where possible – the educational settings that they are used in» (Selwyn, 2008).
Undersøkelser viser at norske ungdommer er storbrukere av sosiale nettsteder og Facebook dominerer blant 16–19-åringer. 77 % av ungdommene bruker Facebook hver uke.
YouTube har også mange brukere, og 71 % av de unge er innom YouTube ukentlig eller oftere (Storsul, 2008). ITU Monitor viser at fritidsbruken i liten grad gjenspeiles i skolebruken.
Deltakelse på nettet er ikke uten risiko, og stiller krav til en kritisk kompetanse. De
unges sosiale aktiviteter på nettet er ofte tilgjengelig for offentligheten, og kan ha mer
langtrekkende konsekvenser enn for tidligere generasjoner. Omverdenen har normalt liten interesse av aktivitetene i nettsamfunn, men det finnes eksempler på at bilder og tekst
fra nettsamfunn har fått internasjonal oppmerksomhet. Det er et paradoks at disse aktivitetene i mange tilfeller er de som i minst grad skjer med veiledning fra mer kompetente,
som foreldre eller lærere (Jenkins, 2006). Den amerikanske forskeren danah boyd understreker at de voksne har et ansvar for å utdanne unge til å navigere i et Internett som i stor
grad er skapt av brukerne. Heller enn å stenge sosiale nettsteder ut av skolen, kan dette
taes inn i undervisningen som en del av den virkeligheten ungdom skal utdannes til
(boyd & Ellisson, 2007).
Ungdom opplever nettsamfunn først og fremst som sosiale og underholdende. De
sammenligner det med å være på kafé, på festival eller på løkka – steder der de møtes og
deler både underholdning og informasjon. Ungdommene selv er kritiske til i hvilken grad
man kan bruke nettsamfunn til mer nytteorienterte formål. Derimot tyder forskning på
at nettsamfunn brukes til et mangfold av aktiviteter, også læring. Informasjonssamfunnet
154
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 155 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
skaper nye utfordringer med tanke på hvilke ferdigheter og kompetanser som er sentrale
og relevante. I skolen fremstilles kildekritikk og kritisk vurdering av innhold og budskap
som spesielt sentrale elementer, fordi dette er viktige kompetanseområder i skolens læreplan. I andre sammenhenger, som nettsamfunn som Facebook og MySpace eller private
blogger, er lek med sjangre, identiteter og sannheter mer akseptert og fremtredende.
Det heter seg at to hoder er bedre enn ett. Hva da med tre? Ti? Tretti? På Stovner videregående skole i Oslo har historielærene sett på muligheten av å ta wiki-teknologien i
bruk for prosjektarbeid og oppgaveløsning i undervisningen. Prosjektet kalles Tweak og
bygger på prinsippet om å dele og å utvikle kunnskap sammen. Wikien gir elevene og
lærerne et felles rom for å samle, dele og vurdere informasjon fra ulike kilder; som Internett, lærebøker, filmer eller fotografier. Istedenfor å kopiere tekst lærer elevene å finne
frem, fortolke, og være kritisk selektive, integrere og å videreutvikle tekst. Wiki-teknologien støtter nye metoder for kunnskapsbygging, og er i tråd med Kunnskapsløftets krav
om å kunne håndtere informasjon fra ulike kilder. Tweak prosjektet utvikles av InterMedia ved Universitet i Oslo, med støtte fra ITU.
Det ungdom lærer på fritiden kan i følge medieforskeren Henry Jenkins ha stor betydning. Han fremhever at vi er i ferd med å bevege oss fra et skille mellom de som har tilgang
til teknologi og de som ikke har det, mot et skille mellom de som har den kulturelle og sosiale kompetansen til å bruke teknologien i mer «nyttige» sammenhenger og de som ikke har
det. Når samfunnet i stadig større grad blir knyttet sammen i nettverk, skapes det uformelle
kunnskapsfellesskap som vi ikke vet hvordan vil påvirke samfunnet fremover (2006).
Ungdom utvikler viktige sosiale og tekniske ferdigheter online, som i liten grad forstås
eller verdsettes av voksne. «It might surprise parents to learn that it is not a waste of time
for their teens to hang out online», sier forskeren Mizuko Ito (2008), som har skrevet rapporten fra studien. «There are myths about kids spending time online – that it is dangerous or making them lazy. But we found that spending time online is essential for young
people to pick up the social and technical skills they need to be competent citizens in the
digital age» (Ito, 2008).
Digital dannelse hos dagens barn og unge handler om en evne til å håndtere forandringer og komplekse utfordringer, nærmere bestemt at den bør være det som kan kalles
transformativ. En slik tilnærming kan vi bruke for å forstå digital kompetanse i sosial web.
Det handler ikke bare om hva de unge kan, men også i hvilken grad de kan nyttiggjøre seg
kunnskapen i andre sammenhenger – som i senere yrkesutøvelse og som aktive deltakere
i samfunnsutviklingen. En slik utvikling av unges kompetanse kommer imidlertidig ikke
automatisk, og kan ses som en sentral oppgave for skolen i tiden som kommer.
morten søby
redaktør
delingskultur, sosial web og læring
155
dk-2008-3.book Page 156 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Referanser
Arnseth, H.C., Hatlevik, O., Kløvstad, V., Kristiansen, T., Ottestad, G. (2007). ITU Monitor 2007. Skolens digitale tilstand 2007. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
boyd, d. (2007) «Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics
in Teenage Social Life.» MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth,
Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
boyd, d. og Ellison, N. (2007). ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1).
Ito, M. , Horst, H., Bittanti, M. , boyd, d., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., Pascoe, C.J., &
Robinson, L. et al (2008). Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings
from the Digital Youth Project. Lastet ned 26.11.08 fra: http://www.macfound.org/atf/cf/
{B0386CE3-8B29-4162-8098-E466FB856794}/DML_ETHNOG_WHITEPAPER.PDF
Jenkins, H. (2006). White paper: Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture:
Media Education for the 21st Century. Berkeley, US: MacArthur Foundation.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A.R. & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and Social Media. Lastet
ned september 2008 fra: www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/230/report_display.asp
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. Available as 30th anniversary edition, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994
Selwyn, N. (2008). Social networking and education – a critical perspective. Foredrag på
ITUs konferanse «Sosial web og læring», video tilgjengelig på: http://www.itu.no/
arrangementer/1224232583.8
Storsul, S., Arnseth, H.C., Bucher, T., Enli, G., Hontvedt, M., Maasø, A. (2008). Nye Nettfenomener – Staten og delekulturen. ITU og IMK. Universitetet i Oslo. Lastet ned september 2008 fra: www.media.uio.no/forskning/prosjekter/nettfenomener
Zittrain, J (2008). The Future of Internet and How to Stop It. Yale University Press New
Haven & London. Lastet ned 26.11.08 fra: www.jz.org/
156
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 157 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
digital kompetanse | 3-2008 | vol. 3 | side 157–178
Kai Hakkarainen | Marianne Bollström-Huttunen | Riikka Hofmann
Kai Hakkarainen, Department of Education, University of Helsinki | kai.hakkarainen
@helsinki.fi
Marianne Bollström-Huttunen, Laajasalo Elementary School, Helsinki
Riikka Hofmann, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK
Teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive
transformation of pedagogical practices
Abstract
The purpose of the present article is to examine the expansive transformation of pedagogical practices prevailing at elementary-level education. Toward that end, it addresses the dynamic interface
that emerges in collaborative relations between teacher-practitioners and academic researchers.
Pursuit of pedagogical innovations in the context of computer-supported learning requires interaction across the disciplinary borders that often separate practitioners and researchers in education.
The article introduces the pedagogical model of progressive inquiry and describes an elementaryschool students’ study project in which the model was applied by the teacher participant. Dialogues
between a teacher and a researcher are used to illustrate cognitive, social and emotional challenges
involved in teacher-researcher interaction, in using PI in education and in the overall pedagogical
transformation that is entailed. The experiences of the project indicated that the network-based
learning environment should not necessarily be considered as the space for sharing knowledge and
collaborative knowledge-building. Rather, at least in the present PI project, the network-based
environment functioned as a space for gathering knowledge and documenting the process of
knowledge-building while the actual sharing of knowledge took place in face-to-face discussions in
the classroom, i.e. in the physical space.
keywords
collaborative technology • knowledge building • progressive inquiry • teacher’s voice
1. Introduction: A Dynamic Interface of Teacher-Researcher Interaction
The purpose of the present paper is to describe the pedagogical transformations involved
in creating a Progressive Inquiry (PI) culture in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Progressive inquiry is a pedagogical approach oriented to facili-
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
157
dk-2008-3.book Page 158 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
tate collaborative inquiry-learning in general and Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) in particular. It has been created by Kai Hakkarainen and his colleagues
in Finland (Hakkarainen, 1998; Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004; Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2005) on the basis of Carl Bereiter’s (2002; Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 1994) knowledge-building approach. The progressive inquiry approach has
become relatively popular in Finland; many schools, provincial departments of education
and teacher-education institutions have made it a central foundation of their pedagogical
practices. Also Finnish national curriculum guidelines acknowledge the importance of
engaging students in inquiry practices addressed by this framework. While the original
formulations of the model relied on cognitive research on educational practices and were,
consequently, conceptually biased, the model has been developed toward a socio-cultural
direction during the last five years (Hakkarainen, in press). Aspects of inquiry addressed
by the progressive-inquiry model are examined as special kinds of social practices related
to productive working with knowledge (i.e., “knowledge practices”).
The present investigators contend that it is essential to hear both the teacher’s and the
researcher’s voices (c.f., Wertsch, 1995; Bakhtin, 1981) when one is doing research on computer-supported collaborative learning. Toward that end, the present article aims at making explicit the multi-voiced characteristics of teacher-practitioners’ and researchers’ joint
efforts to improve the quality of learning and instruction with the help of collaborative
technologies. Dialogues between the teacher and researcher participants are used throughout the article to illustrate the psychological, socioemotional, social and cultural challenges
involved in the described pedagogical transformation. This approach enables us to address
the inherently heterogeneous, conflictual, tension-laden and unstable aspects of practices
of computer-supported learning taking place in Finnish elementary-level education.
While the PI model may be used in a normative manner, the present article is focused
on describing the actual implementation of this approach in pedagogical practices rather
than simply presenting its conceptual foundations. The model serves as a heuristic tool
for reflecting on and transforming pedagogical practices, a process in which the model is
further elaborated and developed dynamically; it does not simply exist in pre-set standards used to assess the teacher’s and learners’ process. Precisely because the implementation of normative models in social practices is very difficult and not a matter of static
application or pre-set guidelines, we need a dialogue between teacher-practitioners’ and
researchers’ perspectives embedded in joint efforts of expansive transformation (Engeström, 1987) of pedagogical practices. Educational interventions carried out by academic
researchers in educational institutions appear to create a dynamic interface (compare
Long, 2001) between the researchers and teacher-practitioners. The purpose of the dialogues used in the present article is to make the character of this interface evident, and in
particular to reveal how multiple interests and interpretations interact and determine the
course of discourse and pedagogical interventions in various and partially unpredictable
158
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 159 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
ways. We have published a monograph in Finland (Hakkarainen, Bollström-Huttunen,
Pyysalo (currently R. Hofmann) & Lonka, 2005) in which such teacher-research dialogues
were used to frame progressive inquiry; it was very well received by practicing teachers.
The article describes a process of moving from project learning towards progressiveinquiry practices by introducing the pedagogical model of PI and describing an elementary-school students’ CSCL project in which the model was applied by the teacher participant. The teacher participant (Marianne) is female, and she has more than 25 years
experience of teaching elementary school pupils. She has specialized in using ICT in her
teaching for more than 15 years. At the time of conducting this study, she worked as a
provincial pedagogical support person and trainer of other teachers using ICT, being
allowed to use 1 day of each week for this purpose. She is currently retired. The researcher
participant (Kai) is a 52-year-old professor of education, with a professional background
in psychology and cognitive science. He has been working with CSCL since 1994.
The dialogues have been constructed from transcriptions of the two participants’
interviews and their discussions. These two participants were allowed to edit their assertions so as to crystallize their ideas and improve the flow of arguments. These transcriptions have been selected from among a very large corpus of text to illustrate critical
aspects of computer-supported inquiry learning and its implementation in elementary
school. The last author of the present paper assumed responsibility for stylistic editing
and organizing the material into the form of the present dialogues. All statements have
been translated from Finnish.
In what follows, we will illustrate the emergence of a collective progressive-inquiry
culture in the context of CSCL, relying on dialogues between the teacher and research
participant.
An Initial Encounter
Marianne (M): When I heard Kai Hakkarainen talk about progressive inquiry (PI) for the
first time at the summer school of the Educational Technology Project in the City of Helsinki about 12 years ago, in which he claimed its superiority over project learning (PL),
I was really angry about his devastating and overwhelming criticism of the latter. I understood, roughly speaking, that while participating in PL, students do not usually achieve
good learning results at all. Nonetheless, I thought that the assessment was unfair and felt
that it was directly focused on my own pedagogical methods. I had just completed an
excellent long-standing professional PL training course, and, encouraged by this experience, started to bring up, as a teachers’ ICT trainer and pedagogical consultant [support
person] examples of students’ productions that anyone could have ‘taken as a model’.
Kai (K): When I started to pursue research on CSCL in the middle of 90s, I did not
know very much about computers, schools or teachers. I was a kind of epistemologist,
not in terms of being a professional philosopher, but in terms of being a student inter-
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
159
dk-2008-3.book Page 160 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
ested in theoretical questions without being really able to do empirical research. Nevertheless, I was, theoretically familiar with cognitive research on educational practices. In
my first encounters with teachers I was usually assisted by one of my colleagues who had
extensive experience of working with teachers. I remember one teachers’ meeting at
which she let me say one sentence, then interrupted me, translated my message into a
form that the audience would better understand, and then let me to continue, only to
interrupt me again and so on. It was a true challenge to work out concepts and frameworks that allowed me to communicate findings of research on computer-supported
learning to teachers and other interested parties. My critical stance was reinforced
because I had personally had rather negative experiences of school.
M: It turned out that after recovering from your ‘researchers’ critique’ I felt a sustained new drive for my work with ICT and teaching. I have always wanted to examine
things at a deeper level, and I have been frustrated by the surface-level processing of
things that so often characterize school learning due to shortage of time. After listening to
your lectures about progressive inquiry, I took experimenting with the method as a personal challenge, although I was not convinced about its benefits. ‘If it would allow me to
obtain even better results than those achieved during my project-learning projects, it
would be worthwhile,’ I thought.
K: It took a long time to learn to work with teachers and schools. Step by step I
learned to find words and expressions that helped me to create contacts with practicing
teachers and talk about progressive inquiry in a way that facilitated pedagogical changes
as well as conveyed my appreciation of teachers’ work. I learned over time to understand
better the constraints under which teachers function, and after coming to know many
excellent teachers, such as Marianne, to appreciate that they often engage in incredible
efforts to help students to learn. I have to admit, however, that I sometimes still succeed
in upsetting teachers and I have many times decided to be more careful about watching
what I say.
2. Pedagogical Limitations of Project Learning
In the following, the initial interface of the present researcher-teacher collaboration will
be described. It involved critical discussion of prevailing practices of project learning and
envisioning of expansive possibilities provided by the progressive inquiry approach.
“Project learning” is used throughout the article to refer to concrete practices of using
ICTs that were observed by the research participant; our criticism concerns these concrete
practices rather than pedagogical value of project-based learning in general (about
sophisticated forms of project-based learning, see Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006).
K: While visiting schools I noticed that project learning was a popular pedagogical
method. This pedagogical approach guides teachers to use information and communica-
160
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 161 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
tion technologies for organizing student-centered projects. Although it involved many
positive aspects and emphasized cooperation between students, it appeared to be too
strongly focused on external activities and the production of fancy, nice-looking end productions. Parents and other visitors were invited to admire students’ productions, but it
remained uncertain whether in-depth learning or inquiry had really occurred. Following
Carl Bereiter’s (2002) arguments, I proposed that project learning focused too much on
hands-on activities rather than represented extended working for the advancement of
students’ ideas and thoughts, which characterizes authentic inquiry.
M: I started to apply and experiment, gradually, with the PI method in practice. The
course of my learning may be described as a jigsaw puzzle rather than a direct path. I
imagined that PI would be easy. Pretty soon, I realized, however, that different aspects of
the method involve transforming continually arising, new problems, for each of which
you need to find a solution during the process. My experience was similar to that of a passionate solver of jigsaw puzzles; new puzzles consisted of an ever-increasing number of
smaller and smaller pieces. Many pieces had to be put aside before the correct and longmissed piece could be found. For six years, I have struggled through several projects
together with students, to learn something about the stages of PI by wondering, reading,
writing, discussing, making mistakes, making observations and trying it all over again.
My own learning has certainly not been easy. Only a couple of our projects deserve to be
regarded as PI projects. Most of the projects have been divided into smaller problems that
have been pursued by using PI methods with varying degrees of success. On the way, the
projects have been transformed toward processes of inquiry.
How Can Educational Practices Be Transformed?
K: Change in practices is very hard for anyone to bring about, whether a teacher or a
researcher. How did you succeed in going through the transformation of your pedagogical practices?
M: Learning of the method required, in my opinion, ‘looking in the mirror’, profoundly reassessing my earlier teaching. I went far back in time. In my mind, I went
through my students’ group work on the Rome topic and a multimedia production concerning Native Americans and Expeditions. Australian Animals and the Most Important
Inventions (with inventors) had also been involved in our projects. I had been very satisfied with the development of students’ ICT skills, and so were the students themselves.
My students were among the few who were already able to use ICTs fluently in 90s, from
text processing to working with digital images. I wondered and doubted whether it would
have been possible to do the work any better.
K: It appears that, in your case, pedagogical and technological sophistication were
productively meeting each other. Many of the CSCL teachers that I have worked with
have only been interested in technology. Whenever one went to their classrooms, they
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
161
dk-2008-3.book Page 162 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
were excited about new pieces of equipment or a screensaver they had acquired; but they
never talked about students’ understanding and advancement of their thoughts.
What Do Students Actually Learn through Computer-mediated Inquiry?
M: Everything was not, however, in order in my teaching, something was missing. I had
not had time to think about what students actually learned from project work. I took it
for granted that they would also learn things that they were writing about. It did not
occur to me to ask whether they learned well enough or would have been able to learn
better by using another method.
K: So what was the missing epistemic element? What kinds of weaknesses in your students’ epistemic efforts did you find after examining your work critically?
M: I realized that most students’ own ‘mental’ contributions had been too narrow and
small. They had learned ICT skills, written a lot of texts using computers, and produced
pictures in multiple ways, but most of the work had consisted of taking material found from
a source, putting it in a slightly modified form and posting it to a multimedia environment.
Copying things from information sources by using computers was not meaningful. Students did not remember more than they would have learned by copying things into their
ordinary notebooks. We would have needed other kinds of methods for keeping things in
mind and working through them. Everyone learned, from a complex unit, mainly about his
or her own topic. Our shared attention focused on the impressive appearance of the work.
It was technically really excellent collaboration from the whole class. I started to realize that
I could survive by teaching computer skills to the students whenever those were needed, so
that it was not necessary to focus on this so much. I observed that the use of ICT calmed
down some pupils who were difficult to control in conventional classroom situations. For
one of the students, ICT was the only way of engaging him in task-related activity.
3. Progressive-Inquiry Model – An Implementation of KnowledgeCreation Perspective on Learning
K: It turned out to be necessary to concretize philosophical ideas of inquiry that I was
interested in into a pedagogical model. Even if limited, the Progressive Inquiry Model,
developed together with colleagues, such as Kirsti Lonka and Lasse Lipponen, allowed me
to talk in concrete terms about pedagogical transformations that we wanted to bring
about in education with the help of CSCL. We wrote a book together (Hakkarainen,
Lonka & Lipponen, 2004) that sold more than 15,000 copies in Finland; this is pretty
exceptional. The model did not emerge from scratch; it is an abstraction of actual learning processes, for instance, those in which 10-year-old Canadian CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment, see Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) students
engaged with the help of their teachers. I came to the field of CSCL after getting excited
162
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 163 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
about the advanced processes of inquiry that these young students pursued. While the
model has conceptual foundations, the actual elements and implementation of the models are based on insights that arose from an interaction between teacher-practitioners and
researchers (see Hakkarainen, 2003b; 2004).
Progressive inquiry is a pedagogical model designed to facilitate expert-like working
with knowledge in the context of computer-supported learning (Hakkarainen, 1998;
Hakkarainen 2003b; Hakkarainen, Lonka & Lipponen, 2004; Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004; Muukkonen, Lakkala & Hakkarainen, 2005; Muukkonen, Hakkarainen & Lakkala, 2005a; 2005b;). In the background of the progressive-inquiry (PI)
model, there is Carl Bereiter’s and Marlene Scardamalia’s knowledge-building approach
that evolved from their pioneering research on writing, intentional learning and expertise
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia, 2002). This approach emphasizes the learner’s active and collaborative direction of his/her own process, including setting objectives, the formulation of hypotheses, questions and subquestions, the revision
of concepts and self-monitoring of the state of one’s knowledge, what one knows and still
needs to find out. Their approach is valuable because it has both practical and theoretical
depth; a knowledge-building approach is likely to bring about transformation in learning
communities supporting higher-level processes of inquiry as well as fundamentally
changing one’s way of understanding educational processes.
Another theoretical foundation of PI is philosopher Jaakko Hintikka’s interrogative
model of inquiry that emphasizes the role of questions and question generation in
knowledge-creating inquiry (see Hintikka, 1999; Hakkarainen, 1998; Hakkarainen & Sintonen, 2002). The PI model abstracts certain core processes involved in progressive
inquiry and guides the implementation of corresponding pedagogical practices at various
levels of education. The model has an empirical derivation as well; its developers consider
the actual and best practices of scientists and other investigators. The model is being
implemented, tested and developed in various schools and universities in Finland. Figure
1 provides an abstract description of the elements of progressive inquiry.
The PI model is designed to facilitate engagement in in-depth processes of inquiry
and expert-like working with knowledge that are essential for productive participation in
the knowledge society. Progressive inquiry entails that new knowledge is not simply
assimilated, but constructed through solving problems of understanding. By imitating
the practices of mature knowledge communities, the participants are guided to engage in
extended processes of inquiry. Progressive inquiry is designed to be implemented in
structures of CSCL activities. The users are guided to post their ideas and thoughts into a
shared space and engage in many kinds of collaborative reflections and discussions. These
postings are structured according to the elements of PI models. An essential aspect of PI
is to engage collaboratively in improving the shared knowledge objects (hypotheses, theories, explanations or interpretations) that emerge during the process (cf. Scardamalia &
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
163
dk-2008-3.book Page 164 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Generating Working
Theories
Setting up Research
Questions
Critical
Evaluation
Creating the Context
Distributed
Developing New
Working Theories
Expertise
Searching Deepening
Knowledge
Generating Subordinate
Questions
Elements of progressive inquiry (Hakkarainen, 1998)
Bereiter, 2006). These knowledge objects do not need to be formally sophisticated, just
ideas that the participants are concerned about.
M: Kai, could you explain what is the big deal about progressive inquiry? How do you
see the significance of the model?
K: Together with my colleague Sami Paavola, I have been developing an approach that
examines learning as a knowledge-creation process (see Paavola, Lipponen & Hakkarainen, 2004; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005), that is, the learners through their own collaborative efforts improving their knowledge and concepts, through a kind of internal
dynamic; that is, not simply taking in, storing and assimilating knowledge or facts. I think
that the PI model involves epistemic activities, such as the participants posing questions,
generating their own working theories and engaging in deepening inquiry, all of which
are essential in knowledge creation. These are all essential aspects of productive working
with knowledge. Our development of the PI model was partly based on observations of
scientific and inquiry practices. It is crucial for students to practice these kinds of activities from the very beginning of their education. It may sound very easy, but it is not.
A kind of epistemological shift seems to be necessary in order to implement practices of
progressive inquiry in education. It means that one needs to learn to see learning and
knowledge advancement in terms of transforming questions and tentative theories proposed by the participants themselves, rather than as simply assimilating already existing
164
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 165 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
ideas and thoughts. Our approach to progressive inquiry has evolved in a direction that
involves seeing epistemic actions as inherently embedded in social practices prevailing in
a classroom. By relying on PI, motivated teachers have been able to create local classroom
practices that channel the participating students’ limited cognitive efforts in a way that
facilitates collaborative knowledge advancement. Consequently, epistemic advancement
and the transformation of social practices take place hand-in-hand.
4. Stages of Progressive Inquiry – Illustrations from the Life and Death Project
In the following, each aspect of progressive inquiry will be briefly discussed. We will use
Marianne’s Life and Death project as an example of implementing the model in practice
in an elementary-level classroom. This, like all Marianne’s other projects, is accessible on
the Internet (http://www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu). At the time of conducting these dialogues, Marianne had worked 1st (7-year-olds) to sixth (12-year-olds) grade students,
following the progressive inquiry method. The progressive inquiry specifies certain epistemologically essential elements that an inquiry community needs to go through (Figure
1) although the relative importance of these elements, their order and actual content may
involve a great deal of variation from one PI project to another.
Creating Context
K: A starting point of the process of inquiry is to jointly create a context for the project in
question. This aspect of the PI process is designed to ensure that inquiry does not focus
on learning something just for school, but serves more substantial, intellectual aims.
Through creating context the issues being investigated may be anchored in complex realworld problems that the students genuinely care about. It is essential that the students
and teacher agree that the topic is worthy of investigation, and personally commit to
work on it. In addition, it needs also to be sufficiently complex and multifaceted.
M: The progressive-inquiry project in my 6th grade class started when I talked with the
teachers of the parallel classes about a loosely shared topic that we would like to work on
jointly. Some articles about euthanasia had appeared in the Finnish press which attracted
the interest of both myself and my students. The Life and Death project emerged from
these discussions as well as from a necessity of delicately dealing with recent deaths in the
students’ families. In the beginning, we teachers discussed, on a general level, potential
areas and issues covered by the Life and Death topic as well as key aspects of the curriculum that could be integrated with the project. The topic appeared to involve opportunities
to work with several domains of knowledge, such as biology, history and religion.
K: What was your students’ role is designing the Life and Death project?
M: It was crucial; the students and I discussed a lot of it together, and everyone got
really excited. The direction of the project was almost completely determined by the stu-
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
165
dk-2008-3.book Page 166 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
dents through our joint discussions. Consequently, the Life and Death Project did not
advance in such a linear way as introduced here; it meandered, went back and forth, came
back to earlier questions and turning points (more like a hypertext rather than an ordinary text). It is linearly presented here only to make it more accessible to the readers.
Engaging in Question-Driven Inquiry
K: I think that there cannot be a genuine process of inquiry without questions. In my
mind the idea of a PI model is to create a culture in which students are themselves
encouraged to pose questions that will be jointly pursued. Sometimes it is perfectly all
right for a teacher to pre-structure students’ activities by selecting questions herself.
I would like to further highlight the cognitive value of questions that arise from the participants’ own need to understand and their wonderment process of inquiry.
M: I started to explore the principles of PI by gradually tasting. I decided to try a
more child-centered method of working … I felt that I could start working in a very
open way, at least in the beginning. Following the National Curriculum Guidelines produced the only constraint, but in Finland the curriculum provides a great deal of room
for making modifications. I considered a focus on understanding to be important and
searched deliberately for tools or aids to support it. Posing questions appeared to have
an essential role in respect of PI. I tried to think of my own role in discussions and how
much I could bring up my own thoughts. I decided to teach things only by following
students’ questions. I wondered whether children would themselves find a core idea by
asking questions, that they, as well as me as a teacher, would consider important. I also
took note of whether they would propose deepening questions or be satisfied with a narrow answer.
K: How can the results of your explorations be seen in the implementation of the Life
and Death Project?
M: The fields of inquiry concerning the Life and Death project arose directly from the
students’ interests. Our [teachers’] preliminary ideas were not introduced to the students;
instead, each student was given the task of writing down any questions that the topic of
life and death brought into his or her mind. This task was anchored in some classroom
discussions that had taken place before and created the context for the project. The preliminary teacher discussion helped us to prepare for the project in respect of foreseeing
what kinds of topics might arise in discussion with the student. It also gave us the opportunity to relate the issues brought up by the students to the key contents of the curriculum. We [the teachers] went through the students’ questions together in order to categorize them, find out what broader fields they covered and to decide in what directions the
projects could go to in order to answer these questions. The questions that were loosely
grouped by us were then moved into the network-based learning environment for all participants to see. We ended up having five principal questions that structured our project:
166
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 167 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
•
•
•
•
•
What is life?
How did life begin?
How did life develop on the Earth?
What is human life?
What is death?
Generating Working Theories
K: An important aspect of progressive inquiry is the generation of the students’ own
hypotheses, theories or interpretations of the phenomena being investigated. Construction of one’s own working theories guides the participants to systematically use their
background knowledge and become aware of their background assumptions. I would say
that working theories represent the use of a participant’s background knowledge to tentatively explain the things being investigated. PI is intended to create a culture for facilitating explication and externalization of these intuitive ideas through writing about one’s
own thinking and reasoning and taking them as the object of collaborative discussion.
How have you, a teacher, gone about facilitating the generation of working theories?
M: Well, we began with a discussion about life. The students were given the opportunity to tell their fellow students about things they remembered or knew about life as a
phenomenon. In this way, we tried to anchor the issues being investigated to the students’
prior knowledge and conceptions. An important aim was to really help to bring the students’ voice to the front. One student was usually assigned to write down the issues raised
in classroom discussion on a word-processor, and the document was saved into the
school’s Intranet project folder which could be accessed by all students. During the discussion, each participant examined this document, and those aspects that were missing
or inadequately represented were gradually added. This document, jointly created by the
students, constituted the starting point of the project (http://www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu/
elama/el.html).
K: How did your joint discussion of Life and Death advance?
M: In this initial discussion about life, many important issues about biology came up.
These involved a great many important questions that the students wondered about, and
these questions became the starting problems of the project. The first questions the students wanted to find answers for were the definition of life and different forms of life. It
instantly became evident that, while the students remembered a great deal about this
topic from earlier school years, a lot of new information was needed in order to begin to
understand what life is. The students produced all kinds of explanations; sometimes we
were all overwhelmed by the complexity of the topic.
K. It is very interesting the read your students’ productions. You know that reading
the ingenious conceptions of very young students made me become interested in pursuing CSCL research in the first place. Over many years, I have constantly struggled to get
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
167
dk-2008-3.book Page 168 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Finnish students to pursue their own explanations. Reading your students’ productions,
Marianne, provides systematic evidence of epistemic agency, specifically, in that the students were committed to collaboratively pursue their inquiries. It appears that, like the
findings of the Canadian students, the frame of your students’ explanations appears to be
only concerned with human life, rather than a biological conception of life in general
(Hakkarainen, 2003 b). This can be seen in the following working theories concerning
the preconditions of life:
A human being must sleep so that the body can rest. Humans and animals also need
physical activity and healthy food to stay healthy and well. (Pauliina, pupil)
Nowadays it is important to live in a house whereas earlier people lived in caves. (Heidi,
pupil)
Living requires water and food. (Nikolas, pupil)
Nowadays … nearly everybody has a mobile (cell phone), which seems to be more important than life for many people. Everybody also seems to require cars and things. (Ninni,
pupil)
Critical Evaluation
K: After generating working theories, it is essential to assess the strengths and weaknesses
of different explanations and approaches. It is, moreover, important that the students
themselves learn to assess their advancement. In general, critical evaluation is needed to
help the inquiry community direct and regulate joint cognitive efforts and evaluation of
what knowledge and skills are needed in order to make progress.
M: Once in a while, I asked the students to stop all activities and gather around me to
assess the advancement of our project. We projected collectively developed ideas on a wall
with the help of a video projector and reflected on them. We engaged in a deep discussion
concerning whether we had succeeded in answering our questions and how we had progressed. One of the students made notes on the shared screen on the basis of our classroom discussion during our joint discussion.
K: This appears to be a very advanced practice that also has theoretical significance.
Without being aware of the theoretical notion of «rise above» (Scardamalia, 2002) processes, you have invented, in practice, cultural activities that serve this purpose, i.e.,
encouraged your inquiry community to rise above its earlier understanding and find productive lines of inquiry. But I want to ask you, did you encounter any problems with students trying to assess their own understandings? Did they have great difficulties? How
well did they succeed?
M: I think that the students were relatively clearly able to assess the depth of their
understanding. They often stated openly that their knowledge of the issues being investigated was not sufficient, that it was at too general and unspecific a level. This awareness
was noticed when we jointly wondered how our inquiry was going and what we had [thus
168
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 169 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
far] written down. We tried to find an answer or answers to certain specific issues concerning the problems being investigated that appeared to be difficult to explain. The students identified issues that appeared to be necessary to understand in order to progress.
Sometimes it was rather difficult to formulate subordinate questions so that they would
reveal what we really wanted to know. The students pointed out that they would «need to
understand the phenomenon at an even deeper level» (quoting their own expression) and
to have detailed knowledge concerning how things had happened. We went through these
kinds of contemplations together. After getting into a corner of critical knowledge that
was likely to involve more specific explanations about the phenomenon and finding
knowledge associated with it from information sources, they understood that they had
advanced and become more deeply involved in investigating the issue in questions. While
dealing with a complex issue, it was still necessary to go through it together and examine
what it was all about.
Searching for New Information
K: The question-driven process of inquiry provides heuristic guidance in the search for
new information. Without obtaining new information, for instance by using literary
sources, consulting experts or conducting one’s own explorations, the process does not
lead to genuine advancement. How were these aspects of PI accomplished in your
project?
M: The students were set to explore diverse sources of information in order to find
answers to their questions. The information found was also saved in the Intranet project
folder so that all students could view the information others had found. It helped that the
questions were common for the whole class, and thus everyone tried to find information
about these same topics. The decision to do it this way was intentional: I wanted to avoid
the task being split into small individual subtasks and to foster the sharing of knowledge
and collaboration in the process of building new knowledge. In this way, all the students
had some knowledge of the issues by the time of the next discussion and could thus contribute to the conversation. While the students were allowed to use the information
found by other students (and documented either in the common Intranet folders or in
the network-based learning environment) and build on that, each student was obliged to
process some text of their own. Individual cognitive responsibility was regarded as
important, and thus each student’s minimal participation in the knowledge-building
process had to be ensured. It soon became apparent that the actual preconditions of life
differed from the students’ initial hunches:
... But the actual preconditions of life are oxygen, water, energy and green plants, which
produce oxygen for us. (Ninni, pupil)
Life is possible because the earth is surrounded by an aerosphere [atmosphere] through
which the harmful radiation of the sun cannot enter, but this aerosphere does not protect
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
169
dk-2008-3.book Page 170 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
against UV-rays and we can protect ourselves from it through clothing and sunscreen. (Petra,
Emma and Terhi, pupils)
Necessary for life is an atmosphere that protects the earth from the dangerous radiation of
the sun. Also death and the right distance from the sun is necessary so that it would not be too
hot or too cold, but approximately between minus ten and plus thirty degrees centigrade.
(Kim and Make, pupils)
K: These appear to be more sophisticated accounts of Life and Death, such as the following explanation of the beginning of life. I would have had difficulty in understanding
all these biochemical processes. The mere translation of your students’ scientific information took a long time and forced me to consult my dictionary repeatedly.
According to one theory all life began from methane, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide,
water vapor and other gases, which then created amino acids and sugar. Life then developed
from proteins, which consisted of sulphur, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon. However,
this wasn't enough for life to begin. What was also needed was liquid from water (a temperature between 0 and 100 degrees centigrade), the planet must be big enough so that its gravitation manages to maintain an atmosphere around it, there must be an ozone layer that protects
from the sun's UV radiation. For life to develop, time is also needed. The transition of life from
water to ground lasted about 4 billion years. (Sirja, Päivi, Sirkku, and Pauliina, pupils)
M: I made a great effort to find “scientific” explanations that would be at the level of
children’s understanding of conceptual issues that appeared to be difficult to understand.
I have noticed that a school text book is never sufficient as an information source, even
when you are studying an apparently ‘simple’ problem. I believe that each progressiveinquiry project is also a PI project for the teacher because she needs to go through a much
larger space of possible knowledge in order to be able to guide students’ advancement.
K: It is critically important to guide the participants to use authoritative sources
transformatively, instead of copying them (Scardamalia, 2002). I have seen many times,
even in the most advanced schools, that students just copy information to the computer
environment. How did you try to solve this problem?
M: My students are not allowed to take books with them to the computers; they are
guided to write short notes instead.
K: I have heard that teachers from Iowa Rapids developed a corresponding practice.
Generating Subordinate Questions
K: It is essential to understand that in authentic problem-solving situations you have to
start generating questions and tentative theories before you have all information in hand.
Therefore, inquiry often starts with initially very general and ‘fuzzy’ questions and tentative working theories (see Hakkarainen & Sintonen, 2002). A critical condition for
progress is that the participants focus on improving their ideas by generating more specific questions and searching for new information. The dynamic nature of inquiry arises
170
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 171 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
from the fact that the generation of intuitive explanations and obtaining new scientific
information make new research questions accessible to the students that they could not
have foreseen at the beginning of inquiry. By finding answers to subordinate questions,
an inquirer approaches – step by step – the original ‘big’ question. Inquiry is advanced by
this process of transforming initial unspecific questions into more specific ones and pursuing these questions in depth.
M: In the context of the Life and Death project, the students derived several series of
new questions from the principal ones. There were several lines of inquiry. After the students had gathered some knowledge about the issue, the information they had found
(documented either in the common Intranet folders or in the network-based learning
environment) was viewed together. The video projector was used for collaboratively
viewing and discussing the documents created by the students. As the texts of all the students were discussed, the students noticed discrepancies and contradictions between the
information from the different sources they had used. This led to more specific questions
or problems, and the students thus tried to find out which items of information were correct. As this proved difficult (the different sources of information indeed included controversial information), a decision was made to search for answers by asking an expert, in
this case, an upper secondary school biology teacher. Through classroom discussion,
groups of students were guided to share their knowledge and integrate divergent lines of
inquiry. Some of Marianne’s students, in fact, engaged in very deep inquiry (http://
www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu/elama/synty.html).
M: Some students went on their own to search for knowledge from libraries about
issues that interested them – and spontaneously used PI in their knowledge acquisition
without being aware of it. I noticed that when students found information they started to
wonder about new things. They deliberately searched for answers to something that they
wanted to find out. I remember a particularly specific and interesting analysis of bath culture in Ancient Rome and matrimonial ceremonies. These topics, in particular, attracted
the other students’ interest because these were not mentioned at all in school books.
Constructing New Working Theories
K: After going though a cycle of inquiry, the participants of PI are encouraged to generate
new tentative theories and explanations for synthesizing their conceptions and summarizing their individual and collective learning and knowledge-building.
M: While working with theories of Life and Death, the students’ inquiries touched the
edges of our joint knowledge. The class expanded its inquiries into several domains of
knowledge. The students investigated questions of life and, in particular, death in various
cultures and in different times (history) as well as in a number of religions (http://
www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu/elama/ kulttuurit.html). These parts of the project were realized in a similar manner as the biological part. The students also visited an exhibition
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
171
dk-2008-3.book Page 172 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
about Ancient Egypt at the Heureka Science Centre, and had a Lutheran minister visit
them to answer their questions about conceptions of death in the Christian religion (in
Finland there are not, however, such strong tensions between religion and science as in
the US). In addition, they created a play. Further, studies on the Finnish language, music
and the visual arts were included in the project by writing about different topics and
including drawings. After examining how life and death were dealt with in Ancient Egypt
(House of Life and Death, http://www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu/elama/kuolema.html), Marianne guided her students to build Houses of Emotions to visualize and concretize their
theories of Life and Death (http://www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu/elama/talot/talot.html).
These expansions were needed because life and death are not just biological processes,
but involve cultural and human aspects that have to be taken into consideration (see
Marianne’s students’ visualizations concerning life http://www.kolumbus.fi/mabohu/
elama/elamansirpaleet.html ).
K: How did you organize your activities at this point of the process?
M: After the students were satisfied with the information they had found to answer
the set questions, the texts written by the students were viewed collaboratively with the
help of the video projector and the network-based learning environment in order to
develop these texts into well-formed answers to the research questions posed so far. The
discussions that took place in the network-based learning environment were used as
material for this. Students summarized these discussions and the summaries were again
viewed collaboratively in order to find out whether all essential aspects had been
included. The final report for each question was constructed using Netscape composer
for creating web pages, which were then included in the network-based learning environment. The aim was not to produce as much text as possible, but rather to reduce the text
size in order to have manageable and compact answers to the initial questions, from
which the process could then be continued.
K: It appears to me that your students really engaged in deepening inquiry. This is a
rather demanding pedagogical achievement. How did you do that?
M: The students really came up with new questions that led the project forward. As
the students reported their final answers to the question about what life is, they started
wondering how life had started on earth. This was, then, the next step of the process. In
the continuation of this process, more and more questions arose concerning the topic of
how life developed on earth. Since the process of evolution is very long, this issue was
divided up according to its different phases, and the class was divided into groups so that
each took responsibility for creating a description of one such period. The students were
then asked to comment on other groups’ reports in the network-based learning environment. Again, the work did not stop when these descriptions were ready, but they were
used as material for further inquiry. Reading through each others’ reports of the periods
of evolution, the students became puzzled with the question, about the order in which
172
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 173 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
various animals had originated. Since the reports written about the various phases did
not answer this question, the inquiry continued until satisfying answers had been found.
Due to the complexity of the topic, the students had to acknowledge that they were not
able to answer their questions.
K: I think that students who pursued the question, ‘What Is the Meaning of Life’
nicely pointed this out:
There has been no answer to the meaning of life yet. So the meaning of life is not known
yet, but everybody certainly has his or her own theory about it. It can, for example, be just
that it is wonderful that there is life, reproduction and fun. Nobody knows the meaning of life
properly; everybody can think it for himself or herself. But I think that we should make the
best out of life while we still can. (Matu, Tiina and Heidi, pupils).
Shared Expertise
K: All aspects of inquiry, such as setting up research questions, searching for new scientific information, constructing of one’s own working theories or assessing the explanations generated, can be shared with other inquirers. Progressive inquiry is often very difficult. Advancement of inquiry can be elicited by relying on socially distributed cognitive
resources emerging through social interaction between the learners, and collaborative
efforts to advance shared understanding. Groups that consist of members who have heterogeneous, but partially overlapping, expertise are often more effective and innovative
than groups with homogeneous expertise.
M: According to my experience, one difficulty involved in project learning was the
organization of cooperation between students working in groups. A group’s task is often
split into non-overlapping, individual tasks, whose results, in the end, students try to
«glue» together into the group's results. The method does not satisfactorily solve the
problem of weaving these separate lines of inquiry together: the students are not usually
motivated any more, at the end of the project, to integrate the diverse research results.
K: I agree. It is a typical problem in more traditional forms of cooperative learning
that the distribution of roles and sub-tasks actually becomes the focus of the learning
activity instead of solving the cognitive problems that are the main object of activity (cf.
Hofmann, 2006; 2008). How did you organize collaboration between your students, Marianne, over the years of exploring with PI?
M: If you want to have your students discuss and negotiate about the issues that they
had studied themselves, you have to start practicing from the very beginning. My students formed a very talkative group. I soon realized that more difficult than keeping students silent was teaching them to talk in a controlled and disciplined way. Still, it was
essential to provide an opportunity for students to discuss things in the classroom. Consequently, students were encouraged to sit close to each other. This habit remained our
way of organizing the physical space throughout the six years I worked with them. The
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
173
dk-2008-3.book Page 174 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
formation of functional teams as I gradually changed the students’ places was an activity
that took place once in a while. Here I aimed at the largest possible change in the composition of the groups. The students knew each other’s good and bad habits and knew
exactly when working together would succeed and when it would not. I had also my own
rules; in each group there had to be both girls and boys, always. We started to systematically practice alternate listening and speaking while working with tasks. We used several
models so that students one by one took the chair’s position, read tasks and gave opportunities to speak, to all the participants. Later on, these become routines. We experimented with how loudly you can work so that the noise would not be disturbed. We
talked about when it is useful to borrow a model of or imitate another pupil. We discussed how you could provide advice to your fellow students without immediately giving
the answer. The students explained what it feels like when you discover something yourself. Later on, we continued various exercises and gave roles and tasks to members of
teams. We learned to make notes of discussions by hand or by using a computer. We went
through various forms of discussion. We discovered a novel way of using the video projector for sharing material with the whole class, while giving a presentation.
K: The progressive inquiry model is a tool that helps teachers or tutors to engage their
students in expert-like working with knowledge. Teachers and tutors have an important
role in guiding and facilitating progressive inquiry. They should guide students themselves to take on responsibility for all aspects of inquiry, such as goal-setting, questioning,
explaining and evaluating, and guide their process of inquiry by their own example.
Investigations of my research group indicate that students cannot easily break the constraints of current pedagogical practices without the teacher’s cognitive guidance. So the
teacher is really the heart of the process. How do you, Marianne, see the teacher’s role in
progressive inquiry.
M: Although the project presented here may appear easy to organize, it is the end result
of many years’ intensive effort. My own path of learning progressive inquiry has been a
very long and demanding one, constantly requiring my own progressive inquiry process
that is still continuing. New CSCL teachers should not expect everything to go smoothly
or work well to begin with; both you and your students need to learn a novel way of working. Talking about the teacher’s role … I have found a young Finnish philosopher, Pekka
Himanen, very helpful. He has written a book called ‘Hatchery’ in which the various roles
of a teacher are examined, following Socrates’ example. According to his interpretation,
the teacher may be seen as a gadfly that kicks and stimulates, assesses, proposes and interferes. This is not, however, enough. The teacher also needs to be a midwife who creates a
classroom situation that helps students to get their thoughts going and visible. She has to
guide their writing and communicating, encouraging them to question, search for new
information, and create knowledge. It is essential that she should be open to new ideas,
bring in thinking tools and new ideas, provide students with support and require their
174
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 175 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
efforts. Finally the teacher has to be an organizer of the whole group, providing for everyone
according to their needs and taking care that nobody is ruining the atmosphere.
Discussion
The Life and Death project illustrates very clearly the advantages that collaborative technology can have for collaborative learning. The experiences of this project indicate that
the network-based learning environment should not necessarily be considered as the primary space for sharing knowledge and collaborative knowledge-building. Rather, as suggested in the present PI project, the network-based environment may function as a space
for gathering knowledge and documenting the process of knowledge-building, while a
great deal of the actual sharing of knowledge takes place in the face-to-face rise-above discussion in the classroom, i.e., in the physical space. Nevertheless, as this example shows,
the technological tools are an irreplaceable and vital part of this space, without which
such collaboration and knowledge-sharing could not occur. The discussion forum of the
network-based learning environment, as well as the school’s Intranet (combined with a
video projector), allowed the teacher and the students to make the students’ ideas visible,
throughout the process; hence the students could profit from the information gathered
and ideas developed by others, since these could be discussed together.
K: When I think about my old argument with you concerning project learning afterwards; I feel that my assessments were too categorical. I contrasted project learning with
knowledge-building inquiry, having as a rhetorical intent, to promote the latter. As often
happens in these kinds of situations, I did not sufficiently highlight the variability within
the project-learning approach. Many aspects of progressive inquiry actually become quite
close to sophisticated varieties of project learning. I am certain that an enthusiastic and
committed teacher is able in practice to break the boundaries of pedagogical models:
pedagogical categories are, after all, abstractions rather than representations of reality as
it is. I was not able, however, to convey these thoughts to my audiences, and perhaps
unintentionally offended many of the most committed teachers who had been doing
great work within the project learning approach.
M: As a consequence of the intensive work that I have done with my students, I now
know much more about PI. The fact that I have been in direct contact with research communities and obtained information from the newest investigations has considerably
influenced my work. I was glad when I noticed that researchers have started to pay attention to experiences and conditions in the field. You researchers have started to understand those constraints that often prevent fast changes or instructional transformations
at school. Your studies are apparently aimed at supporting teachers, not labeling them
incompetent or unnecessarily pointing out mistakes. Some of your students have made
academic study reports of my projects. From these reports I have observed the things I
have succeeded in and others where my pedagogy needs improvement. I believe that I am
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
175
dk-2008-3.book Page 176 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
able to take criticism without getting mad. The things that you have addressed have
helped me to understand how my PI appears to you, how open it has been and how my
students have experienced my teaching. … I will now ask you things that I have been
wondering about and that I suppose other teachers are also pondering when they apply
the methods of PI in practice. Simultaneously, I will tell about my own learning path and
hope that I will find a couple of missing pieces to my jigsaw puzzle…
K: My view is that good CSCL practices have emerged through interaction between
teachers and researchers. Innovative teachers have explored computer-mediated practices of
working with knowledge in their classrooms. Often their work has been inspired by
researchers’ approaches and pedagogical ideas. In many cases, however, teachers are able in
practice to go beyond the ideas that were the source of original inspiration and invent new
pedagogical practices. It appears as if classrooms of such teachers are spontaneously formed
expansive-learning communities (Engeström, 1987) in which novel practices emerge
through iterative efforts that involve reflecting on weaknesses of prevailing practices, implementing and evaluating changes and using the emerging best practices as a starting point of
subsequent iterative efforts (Hakkarainen, 2003a; 2003b; 2004). Researchers, in turn, may
conceptualize this emergent phenomenon so that there is continuous co-evolution between
pedagogical practitioners – teachers – and researchers. I believe that these kinds of processes
are apparent in Marianne’s insightful rise-above sessions that have a potential to inspire
other teachers and their practices. It appears essential to facilitate closer interaction between
teachers and researchers by creating a hybrid culture in which both of these domains of
expertise are cultivated and their growth alongside one another encouraged. This is the reason why I have decided to work for a closer integration between our efforts, so that we
would be continuously available to provide advice when you are planning and actually conducting your PI project, rather than you having to read our reports afterwards; and, in turn,
you would come here to us, from time to time, and report on the results of innovative CSCL
experiments to the international scientific community. Such collaborative processes may
enable us to jointly go beyond boundaries of the initial progressive-inquiry approach and
take it as an expansive object of an emerging, practice-driven co-configuration.
In the present article, the relations between pedagogies concerning project learning
and progressive inquiry were examined through a dialogic interface in an interaction
between a teacher-practitioner and a researcher. Although the dialogues addressed the relative merits of the two pedagogical methods mentioned above, the argument of this article
is not to claim superiority of the latter one. Clearly, it is not abstract theoretical models as
such that determine the pedagogical value of educational innovations; the crucial issue
highlighted by the present examination is to utilize pedagogical models, such as progressive inquiry, as resources that guide the transformation of classroom practices in interaction between teachers and researchers. While experienced teachers are able to engage their
students in progressive inquiry processes, it is never a matter of linear progress or straight-
176
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 177 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
forward application of a body of pre-set guidelines. In order to explicate the tension-laden
implementation of progressive inquiry in practice, the present investigation has brought
various aspects of teacher-researcher interaction to the foreground.
References
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Edited by Michael
Holquist. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in
the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of
inquiry and computer-supported collaborative Learning. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis. University of Toronto.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003a). Emergence of
progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning.
Learning Environments Research, 6, 2.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003b). Progressive
inquiry in computer-supported biology classroom. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 40, 10, 1072–1088.
Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported
classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 979–996.
Hakkarainen, K. (in press). Three generations of research on technologyenhanced learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology.
Hakkarainen, K,. Bollström-Huttunen,
M., Pyysalo [Hofmann], R. & Lonka, K.
(2005). Progressive inquiry in practice:
Travel guide to teachers (in Finnish).
Helsinki: WSOY.
Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K. & Lipponen,
L. (2004). Progressive inquiry: How reason, emotion, and culture inflame learning (in Finnish). Helsinki: WSOY.
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. &
Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of
networked expertise: Professional and
educational perspectives. Advances in
Learning and Instruction Series.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hakkarainen, K. & Sintonen, M. (2002).
Interrogative Model of Inquiry and
Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning. Science & Education, 11, 25–
43.
Hintikka, J. (1999). Inquiry as inquiry:
A logic of scientific discovery. Selected
papers of Jaakko Hintikka, Volume 5.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hofmann, R. (2008, submitted). Ownership in learning: A sociocultural perspective on pupil engagement, collaboration
and agency in the classroom. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Faculty of
Education, University of Cambridge.
Hofmann, R. (2006, May). Ownership as
belonging: Examining shared learning
and agency in school. Paper presented at
the School learning and teaching seminar, Faculty of Education, University of
Cambridge, May 2.
Krajcik, J. S. & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006)
Project-based Learning. In K. Sawyer
(Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of the
teacher-researcher dialogue and expansive transformation of pedagogical practices
177
dk-2008-3.book Page 178 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
learning sciences (pp. 317–333). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Long, N. (2001). Development sociology:
Actor perspectives. London: Routledge.
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005) Technology-mediation
and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565.
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-Mediated
Progressive Inquiry in Higher Education. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and
Technology I–V (pp. 2771–2776). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen K. &
Lakkala, M. (2003) Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. Roberts (Ed.), The Online
Collaborative Learning: Theory and
Practice (pp. 28–53). Hershey: Infosci.
Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The
knowledge creation metaphor – An
emergent epistemological approach to
178
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
learning. Science & Education 14, 537–
557.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen,
K. (2004). Modeling innovative knowledge communities: A knowledge-creation approach to learning. Review of
Educational Research, 74, 557–576.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement
of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal
Education in a Knowledge Society
(pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994).
Computer support for knowledgebuilding communities. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006).
Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy,
and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.) The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1988). Voices of Mind:
A sociocultural approach to mediated
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
dk-2008-3.book Page 179 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
digital kompetanse | 3-2008 | vol. 3 | side 179–201
Andrew Morrison | Idunn Sem
Intermedia, University of Oslo – andrew.morrison@intermedia.uio.no
Stretching multiliteracies:
production-based education & ‘new media’
Screen-based media on the move. Setting up the installation Tapet, October 2007.
1. Introduction
Mobility, mixed reality & learning
Multimodality, multiliteracies, movement and mixed media are some of the themes we
take up in this article in a discussion of the changing character of digital media education.
We address matters of production-based media arts in higher education that involve
movement or kinetic competencies and spatial, or proprioceptive, awareness. We argue
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
179
dk-2008-3.book Page 180 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
for a view of multiliteracies that extends beyond the interfaces and screen-based media of
the Web, online environments and games. New media art is one of the areas that is often
lacking in publications of multimodal multiliteracies in general, and in media studies and
new media education in particular. New media art crosses art, design, informatics, performance and media. Typically it is covered as part of electronic art (e.g. Paul 2003), or
more recently in informatics perspectives on electronic art (e.g. Fishwick 2006). These
publications most often refer to research, technology and aesthetic elements, and less
commonly to learning or notions of multiliteracies and competencies that are already
widely circulated (Cope & Kalantzis 2000, Lankshear & Knobel 2006).
We argue that media education, especially in order to prepare higher education graduates for work in the culture industries (Lash & Lurry 2007), may benefit from collaborative learning and reflection that includes production-based inquiry into digital tools,
materials, mediation and expression. This inquiry is very much to do with exploratory
and innovative expression and popular cultural contexts of creation and use that extend
from mobile phone messaging to artistic constructions. We support this claim through
reference to a collaborative student and research project that involves the design, development and analysis of a mixed reality installation and performance piece called Tapet,
meaning Wallpaper in Norwegian.
In this article, we adopt an essayistic form that refers to this one production-based
educational and research project and its performative outcome. This is a work that results
from collaboration in making new media art, and one that moves between choreography,
media and informatics. The work accentuates the expressive and the explorative; it also
encompasses a synthesis of analysis and production. We argue that developing and exhibiting such a work may help further both our digital literacies and our understanding of
multimodal literacies (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001, Jewitt & Kress 2003) and their role in
learning about wider cultural production (Buckingham 2003).
Many of the publications on multimodality still remain within a strongly systemic
functional linguistic frame, rich as this may be (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001; O’Halloran
2004; Machin 2007). Publications are preoccupied with developing systematic patterns of
analysis of discourse in which a variety of modes may co-occur (Royce 2007). Much of
the research into multimodality and learning that draws on this tradition (Jewitt & Kress
2003, Jewitt 2006), however, remains outside the practices involved in the production of
multimodal discourse in specifically digital domains.1
Come on in…
Elsewhere we have written about the design of Tapet in terms of the intersections between
choreography, media and informatics in the frame of mixed reality arts that blend the
digital and the materialities of the physical here and now (Morrison et al. 2008). The
opening image (above) has been chosen to signify a number of key issues related to a
180
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 181 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
‘stretched’ notion of multiliteracies via production-based learning in the field of mixed
reality arts. The image captures only one context evocative of creative engagement in
learning and researching new media arts. The image is taken from the setting up of the
installation work. The main, large human figure has projected onto it a small dancer in
an orange dress. Immediately, the notion of a mixed reality space is demonstrated. This is
where digital technologies with content developed by student-researcher-designers are
being explored. The computer equipment on the plastic green grass covering the floor
suggests the context of setting up an installation. Here the pre-recorded sequences of the
dancer, to be projected 4 by 3 metres onto the gallery wall, are instead playfully shrunken
to miniature dimensions on the leg of one of the project participants.
Lured in by the occasional forest sounds reaching out into the public university
library setting where the installation Tapet was exhibited in 2007, audience members
enter a space, suggested in this opening image, of play, representational variety and a toggling between a digitally mediated, pre-recorded figure and human participant in their
immediate material space. This is shown in the various photographs below from this particular event and exhibition.
In Tapet, participants are prompted to place themselves at several spots marked in
orange on the fake grass that covers the gallery floor. The dancer in the forest in front of
them, depending on the combinations and linkages generated computationally, may then
line up with them, dance, suggest they move, or move away to a dance sequence of her
own. In this way, the work mixes mediations in real-time. A camera also records the participants’ actions and projects them into the screened forest, so that a mediated mirroring
is conveyed. However, a short time delay is scripted into this mirroring so that the embodied, watching and moving participant not only observes themself in a series of captured/
recorded dance sequences, but also moves to anticipate their own mirroring. In this way,
the work blurs the connections between the ‘real’, immediate world and that which is generated digitally, but, also, comes into being by way of participants’ own actions.
Mixed reality mediation & a mix of competenices
As Buckingham (2007) argues, media educators can respond to the challenges and potentials of digital media by applying existing concepts and practices to new objects of study,
but also by extending these. Yet teachers, he argues, may also engage with the creative
potential of ‘new’ media and the implications they may offer pedagogically. Importantly,
he further argues that working with digital media in contexts of learning offers us opportunities to develop and question modes of participation and their relations to wider
media culture. In this chapter, we address each of these three suggestions as to how we
might take part as teachers and students, designers, artists and researchers in our emerging and – in a Vygotskian frame – developmental approaches to mediated meaning-making (Wertsch 1991).
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
181
dk-2008-3.book Page 182 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Engaging in production-based inquiry that crosses and merges elements of media and
technology (e.g. Jewitt 2006) in an art-making context highlights the need for a range of
competencies. These are ones that are widely implicated in electronically designed and
mediated environments in daily work, learning and leisure. Digital and physical scenography, mediated dance and the potential for participation via sensors, projections and live
and stored media demand that we engage with issues in moving media. Such engagement
may also point to the role of movement inside the prepared work and through a kinetics
that is afforded to audiences themselves. We argue that this is to extend the notion of
multiliteracies from articulations on computer screens to settings where students and
audiences engage with mixed reality design, environments and participation. To do so is
to also take the notions of multimodality (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001) into digital
domains (Morrison in press). These are arenas where extended multiliteracies includes
dynamic, kinetic, spatial and performative modes of mediation and expression.
2. On the mixed reality work Tapet
Photograph of a media researcher (Synne Skjulstad) taking a picture on her phone of the
dancer projected into the forest. This is the environment into which the participants see
themselves projected. Note the mixed reality pun of the power cable at floor level.
182
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 183 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
From collaborative composition…
The installation-performance work Tapet was developed as part of a longer process of
pedagogical and expressive experimentation with students in media, choreography and
informatics (Skjulstad, Morrison & Aaberge 2002; Morrison 2003a; Skjulstad & Morrison
2005). Tapet was framed within a socio-cultural framework to technology-enhanced
learning. This framework accentuates relationships between mediation, tools, technologies and contexts of production and reception that are geared towards participants’
meaning-making in learning events and environments. The socio-cultural approach we
adopted was also influenced by multimodal discourse studies and new media analyses.
Briefly, Tapet invites participants into a space of potential modes of engaging with a
dancer who is projected into a screenspace and with whom they may also appear as mediated performers. In Tapet, mediational affordances for mediated meaning-making were
designed and embedded in the work. The aim was to offer audiences a means for finding
these themselves and becoming implicated in their interplay through movement.
Tapet was first developed as part of a research project entitled MULTIMO that
included graduate students and researchers in collaborative and production-based
inquiry into multimodal digital discourse. Tapet was devised on the basis of earlier collaboration in a graduate course for students of New Media Education (NEWME) with
final year undergraduates in choreography. This collaboration resulted in four dance performances under the title Extended2 that reflected the stretching of both mediated scenography and technology enhanced performances in four works (Sem 2006). In one of these
works, Proximal, live performance and digital projection were alternately present in a
reflexive play between the projections and the choreography, as light and as canvas (Sem
2006: 55, online).3 The visually driven, exploratory design behind Proximal created a
non-representational, multimodal, unstable and shifting work that explored and challenged notions of ‘presence’. This joint production established a strong co-operative practice between the choreographer, Inger-Reidunn Olsen, and the media student, Idunn
Sem. They developed this further in the research and production-driven, project-based
inquiry that was central to the design and development of Tapet. In this latter work, conceptual inquiries introduced in the work Proximal were continued and expanded with
Martin Havnør, a Master’s student in informatics.
… to public participation
Tapet was first devised and built in a large space originally designed as a TV studio, now
used as a mixed media space for experiments involving digital technologies. As part of the
marking of the 10th anniversary of the ITU at its annual conference in 2007 we were
invited to include Tapet in the programme of events in an exhibition called Interfaces. For
us this required repositioning an installation work that had been developed in an experimental lab setting to the very public space of Gallery Svedrup at the University of Oslo’s
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
183
dk-2008-3.book Page 184 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
main library. This space is accessible to students, staff and the general public. This setting
adjacent to the main conference one also offered educators, students and researchers a
shared space for engaging with our propositions through their own embodied interaction.
Encompassing an array of literacies
As the selected images we have included illustrate, Tapet mixes landscape wallpaper, artificial grass and occasional forest sounds with mediated dance performances and scripted
logic. The ability to ‘read and write’ such multimodal texts is confronted with digitally
driven non-linearity and co-composition, location and movement as input and content,
and augmented space and time. Deciphering and also producing these diverse modes of
representation demands an array of literacies. These are entailed in the composition of
the work, especially its collaboration. They are also present in how people engage with
the work, and what it asks of them in terms of making sense of its dynamics and learning
how to move with the (absent) choreographer-dancer.
We argue that Tapet is an artefact that inhabits or embodies both practice and theory.
It is itself a form of reflection and a site for reflection. It functions as an heuristic for
investigating conceptual border crossings by way of collaborative experimental design
and performativity. This was achieved through student interdisciplinary collaboration in
design, implementation and trialling in the guided lab setting at two interconnected levels. First, the work was conceived of as a site that would involve participants in multimodal engagements with several layers or states of their own embodied performance. Second, Tapet aimed to include participants in exploring multiliteracies that involve their
own mediated movement and meta-understanding of the activities involved in shifting
between various modes of engagement between media and mediation. Tapet was geared
towards designing and incorporating these modes as affordances for participation
through which audiences could explore notions and concepts of mixed reality mediatised
performance, and experience their own performance via an unfolding dynamic of mixed
media.
3. Multiliteracies extended
New media arts & literacies
Few of the publications on multiliteracies refer to such an unfolding of collaborative
design and development that is common to the composition practices and experiential
participation central to many new media arts (e.g. Fuller 2005, Grau 2007). Publications
on multiliteracies are usually situated in school level activity; more recently, these writings also address informal contexts of learning (Sefton Green 2006). Emphasis is given to
digital literacies that include students’ own learning through production. Students’ devel-
184
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 185 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
opment of critical analytical acumen about these productions is also central (Buckingham 2006). Importantly, however, such productive constructions of mediated texts and
expressions are seen to include competencies located in students’ uses of digital tools and
modes of expression that software may engender (Sefton-Green 2005) and that are
located in popular cultural uses. Where studies do address students’ digital multiliteracies, these are typically not concerned with higher education contexts that include media
studies. Further, where the realisation of such digital multiliteracies involves students’
own learning via production in and out of school (e.g. Sefton-Greene 2005, Burn &
Parker 2001), focus on media in new media arts is absent, as opposed to, for example,
digital video production. Rarely do we see substantial reference to writings from ‘new
media studies’ itself; even less often do we find reference to domains of electronic art and
technology enhanced performance.
In higher educational contexts, media studies has traditionally been concerned with
analysis and not production. The partnering of these two is pedagogically challenging,
but also potentially fruitful. At a wider level, collaborative production-based inquiry
linked with critical analysis may involve educators and students in iterative and reflexive
activities of making and reflecting. These activities often entail ongoing shifts, ones that
are at times uncomfortable and require patience, trust and curiosity, all oriented towards
supporting students’ understanding of digital design and critique. Here a medley of
domains, content knowledge and competencies may be explored and developed through
collaboration. Such interconnections have the potential to lead to a richer mix of multimodal media and mediation.
Experimental laboratory contexts and related research clusters in higher education
settings may provide a context for situating exploratory and innovative courses for media
studies, as has been the case in, for example, research and educational collaboration on
dance and technology (e.g. Schiphorst 2005). Such activities and linkages to a wider community of practice are an essential ingredient for effectively and innovatively engaging
with the expanding areas of exhibition and experience design within the culture industries. Media studies education, we argue, has much to offer these domains in joining its
students with art and informatics students in production-based learning in new media
arts.
Embodied interaction
In universities media education largely continues to cover an approach to media studies
that emphasises critique. Although this approach now includes the study of computer
games and other participatory media, it does not yet very substantially address the rapidly growing field of embodied interaction (Dourish 2001) that moves us out of our
chairs, off our laptops and away from our remote controls into spaces of mixed media.
Nor is the role of media in these environments highlighted much. Yet, mixed reality arts
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
185
dk-2008-3.book Page 186 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
that are rich in media are flourishing in exhibition and museum design and in theme
parks. These are some of the domains where experiences of shared meaning making
between the expressive and the expository may occur. Such public contexts for the enactment of multiliteracies may include media that are actively and pervasively a part of
wider, popular culture.
A recent notable commercial product that highlights the kinetic and proprioceptive in
its embodied use is the Wii from Nintendo. This wand-like multi-device takes movement
and shared engagement from amusement arcades to the ‘living room’. As a result, our
embodied interactions are also enacted in domestic spaces.4 Perhaps most pervasively
today, the iPhone from Apple, with its touch-based interface that includes dynamic interface elements (Skjulstad & Morrison 2005), takes our kinetic senses and spatial competencies into new commercial and communicative domains. This mobile phone is a multimodal artefact. It symbolises and enacts a kinetics that may become more prominent in
other domains of popular culture and mediated expression involving tangible interfaces.
Haptic, kinetic and mobile media too may be taken up as part of an extended multiliteracy in technology enhanced learning.
Multiple influences
There is a need for media education – and that in higher education settings – to further
explore digital literacies in relation to the experience and knowledge students bring from
their own popular cultural contexts of use and experimentation (Buckingham 1998).
A body of work now exists in school-level media education that examines students’
expressive productions, for example in animation (Burn & Parker 2001), in relation to
the concept of re-mixing of multimodal resources (Erstad et al. 2007) and the re-editing
of video (Burn & Durran 2006). Higher education production-based courses in new
media, that include the arts, will also need to link this knowledge to critical and analytical
approaches so as to build practices that help students move from the phenomenon of the
newly mediated in emerging expressions and devices to their close critique of them.
Linking production with analysis in production-based learning is one means of
stretching traditional academic literacies into an electronic and dynamic frame (Sullivan
& Porter 1997, Hawisher & Selfe 1999, Wysocki et al. 2004). Following the work of Ulmer
(e.g. 1998), this has been referred to as ‘electracies’ (Morrison 2003b). Media Studies is a
potentially rich site for building both competencies and their critiques within and across
media types and modes of mediated discourse. In a project related to the one we present
here on Tapet, undergraduate media students in South Africa, some with limited access to
digital production tools and commercial media consumption, used a specially designed
digital video editing environment to remix a video sequence. To this they were able to add
their own voice-overs and learn about a specific genre of film at the same time (Morrison
et al. 2005, Deacon et al. in press 2008). This specially designed pedagogy included a set
186
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 187 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
of supporting lectures and tutorials on critical terminology and analysis. This type of
experimental space inside media studies and digitally mediated pedagogies is often
achieved through collaboration with technology-enhanced learning specialists and other
partners. Examples of such work can also be found inside academic composition and
communication programmes and their online rhetorical accounts of such innovations
(e.g. Reid 2003, Gillette 2005). In terms of the further development of multiliteracies in
higher education, stronger connections might be made between programmes in digital
rhetoric and composition and media studies in which production with critique features.
Competencies on the move
When collaborating on production-based learning in electronic art it is necessary to take
up matters of materials and the design of screen based media. In installation arts settings
the intersections between interfaces and our performing bodies are involved as part of a
shift from being spectators to that of active participation (Courchesne 2002). The design
and realisation of these relations suggest that we might extend the notion of digital literacies to movement that is beyond the mouse or joystick and is realised through embodied
interaction where performers bodies, including those of our own projected selves, move
together. This may be done playfully and artistically, and sometimes as ‘bodies without
bodies’ (Melrose 2006).
Working experimentally with multiliteracies in higher educational contexts also
heightens the relations between such features and functions. There is a need for co-design
on the part of students who are not simply using off-the-shelf tools for blogging or structuring databases in parallel to known patterns, but are themselves designing and shaping
environments for mediated enagagement. These are environments that are primarily
communicative. In our view, they need to be situated within a Communication Design
perspective (Morrison in press 2008) in which the sociocultural semiotics of mediated
meaning-making are central. The demands here are of various intersecting competencies,
many of which can only be developed through processes of shared production and meaning-making that is digitally mediated. This also applies to mixed reality settings, ones
where choreography and movement may meet interactive art practice (Schiller 2005).
In the sections below we unpack this in a reflection on developing Tapet. We discuss
some of the challenges to our existing competencies and practices. We suggest ways in
which these may be considered as part of a notion of multiliteracies that extended from
print and computer screen arenas to those of mixed reality settings. These we suggest are
settings that are likely to become more closely connected with personal and popular cultural media use. New media and mixed reality arts may be only a part of wider screen
media and mixed reality mediation. However, they contain several elements that apply
more broadly to mobile media, to moving with media, and, importantly, to how we
engage bodily with technologies (e.g. Zuninga Shaw & Lewis 2006).
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
187
dk-2008-3.book Page 188 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
4. Aspects of production-based inquiry
Two participants, one moving, the other watching and waiting, engage with the dancer
before them.
Contexts for design
In Tapet, we adopted a mixed media space rather than the live stage mode of the previous
collaboration Proximal. Compositionally, we did this to be able to toy with the interplay
between the interactive and generative aspects of multimediational, mixed reality expression. We were further interested in moving away from a presentational performance
mode to one that would enable, and hopefully motivate, performativity on the part of an
audience. We have used the term multimodal performativity (Morrison et al. in press) to
encompass the intersections of dance, digital media and audience enactment.
Four states
In terms of the border crossing of modes of enactment and engagement identified in our
explorative inquiry, Tapet can be unfolded as states, though not necessarily sequential ones.
We labelled these as: Embodied, Mediated, Interactive and Generative (Morrison et al. in
press). As these terms have been applied variously elsewhere, we now only explain their provenance concerning this work and some of the implications for reconsidering multiliteracies
in digital environments that extend beyond the boundaries of the desktop computer screen.
In the physical site of Tapet, four spots are marked on the grass. A small camera in the
ceiling reads activity at these positions. The dancer, projected onto the screen, ‘identifies’
188
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 189 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
the participant’s location and a video from the database is cued to suit that position. This
cuing is varied for the particular spot, thereby adding a sense of novelty or difference. At
times the dancer moves energetically and with emphasis, sometimes almost still, at times
facing the participants, sometimes turned away.
The Embodied state refers to the participants’ engagement in a mixed reality space
where a variety of media (print, sound, projection) provide the potential for the participant’s movement to situate a sense of their own body as a part of realising the work. The
reflexivity involved in the movements between the ‘real’ and the ‘simulated’ are also
apparent in the state labelled Mediated. Here it is important that the participant responds
to a performer who is clearly not physically present, but whose mediated movements are
dynamically enacted in the unfolding present. This is an unfolding that reveals alternatives. How the participant engages in this unfolding is what is covered by the state labelled
Interactive. Movement does not just happen; the participant depends on prompts and
guidance. The Generative state is used to cover the variety and multiple combinations of
both the videos delivered by the system and the potential for the participant’s own movements which with the time delay are overlaid onto the screenspace, allowing for a further
reflexive loop of their own performance.
In each of these intersecting, and not necessarily sequential states, the participants are
active partners in mediated performance. They may also move with and adjust their own
sense of learning how to move in this mode of mediated interaction. To call the work an
installation, suggesting it is put into place and left alone representationally, belies an
ongoing ‘installation’ of the intersection of the activities and movement between system,
mediatised performer and live and mediatised participant.
5. Tapet as heuristic
Two contexts in one setting
The adaptive digital design of Tapet is emphasised not only in its generative uses, but also
in it being recustomisable for different settings and events. At the ITU anniversary event
the installation was located in two contexts – a public educational conference space, a gallery setting – to bring forth both intended and less intended engagement and enactment.
In the lab, conference and gallery, Tapet may be viewed as a means for investigating
homogeneity, linearity, complexity and longevity from within an informatics view on
system interaction (Havnør 2006).
From a humanities perspective, Tapet may be viewed as a device through which to
explore cultural, digital and expressive shifts and resultant theoretical challenges and border crossings by embodying them in a mixed reality work (Sem 2006). The productionbased, collaborative and process-oriented experiments presented here, from Proximal to
the redesign of Tapet, have been scaffolding-like inquiries into expressive shifts. These
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
189
dk-2008-3.book Page 190 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
were shifts from ‘… temporal sequential logic of spoken and written language to a spatial-simultaneous logic of the visual (Kress 1999: 68), ‘from narrative to display’ (Kress
1999: 82), and ‘… from the object of representation to the emergent situation, the performative current, and the materialisation of technology itself ’ (Birringer 2003: online).
Most explicitly, the reflexive, playful embodiment of theory in these iterations was
informed by the dialectic of looking through and looking at mediating artefacts, expressions and texts. Here we refer to the notions of immediacy and hypermediacy proposed
by Bolter and Grusin (1999). These terms refer to a shift beyond representation, and its
boundaries in mediating the ‘real’ or that which is apparent (immediacy), to one of looking at the medium itself as a meta-reflexive entity. This is a critical component, we argue,
of extending notions of multiliteracies in higher education.
Inside the forest. Looking at the projection screen. The dancer (left, Inger-Reidunn Olsen) is
generated from within the computer system; the image of the media student designer (right,
facing camera, Idunn Sem) is projected into the forest as she stands facing the screen where
the dancer dances. In the foreground, one of the designer-researchers from MULTIMO
records the media student designer using her mobile phone.
Accentuating the mediated
We aimed to embody such immediacy and hypermediacy in our collaborative, production-based inquiries in aspects of both the design and implementation of the work. In
other words, as we blended digital media with ‘modes’ of live performance in the multimedia performance Proximal, and with the physical environment and system logic in
190
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 191 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Tapet, the post-structuralist and cross-disciplinary view of looking through and looking
at mediating artefacts, expressions and texts surfaced. The double logic of immediacy and
hypermediacy became creative concepts for us to adapt, invert, alter and refine in our
expression via and as a mixed reality work. This was made possible by way of practices of
multimodal discourse in action (Norris & Jones 2005) in a mixed reality arts arena and by
post-production reflection upon practice (Sem 2006: 109 online). In a recursive series of
theory embodiment and improvisation – that is of creating, experiencing and reflecting –
our knowledge about these conceptual artefacts was challenged and broadened.5
On a reflexive level, the making of Tapet proved to be a means to developing a better
understanding of the dynamic between conceptual knowledge and practice. Practice may
be understood as an accompanying line of inquiry to the interpretive and critical analysis
of traditional learning and research designs of the humanities (Sem 2006 online). Engaging with the making and reflection of new media arts can help reveal that humanitiesbased approaches to media studies themselves may be extended from studies of texts as
products to ones where understanding of critical terms and analysis may be acquired via
a developmental process that includes text construction, generation and critique.
6. Production-based digital media education & literacies
Three participants, each in movement, demonstrate that the work allows for multiple participants and multiple experiences within one interactive environment. To the right, two other
members of the audience watch this activity and photograph it. There are many multiliteracies around kinetic, visual and spatial media at play here.
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
191
dk-2008-3.book Page 192 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Practice with theory
There is a growing awareness in both the development of digital media studies and disciplines concerned with digital literacies of how ‘reading’ digital media in some senses is
rather like ‘writing’ or ‘constructing’. In a sense, the object of analysis is not a fixed and
stable entity (e.g. non-linear hyper-textual newspapers or narratives, multiple distributed
and displayed videos in a non-frontal performance-space, or varieties of generative art).
Even the appropriateness of the term ‘media’ is questioned in some digital communication contexts. Penny (2004), for example, suggests artefact as a more suitable term for real
time computation. The boundaries between critical analysis and practical production,
and between practice and theory, are increasingly blurred (Buckingham et al. 1995: 10).
Confronted with rapidly evolving and diverse digital media forms with potential for
synthesising modes and of co-construction (Liestøl & Morrison 2001, Fagerjord 2003),
digital literacies and digital media studies and education may be said to have interlinked
grounds for a more production-based approach and common concerns around production-based methods. The need to explore alternative, multimodal and hypertextual ways
of communicating and evaluating media practice and reflection upon practice is an issue
shared by both digital literacies and digital media education. This is not only a matter of
conveying, in the case of Tapet, multimodal spatio-temporal expressions through writing.
It is also a matter of doing so through embodied participation, photographic documentation and multimodal presentations that may all be connected to project-based inquiry as
part of extended and creative, multiliteracies.
In summary, ‘new’ media arts challenge us to enter into the co-composition of works,
potentially at several levels. These may include their design and shaping – artistically and
technically – and their realisation through performative participation. These are often
works, or environments, that are unstable and without fixed representational forms. As
with earlier hyperfictional works, they are spaces for the realisation of multiple textual
patternings. It is this multiplicity inherent to multimodal digital texts that students may
learn to understand, create and analyse. Each of these aspects may be interlinked in a
holistic approach to teaching and learning about digital multimodal creative expression.
For media students, knowledge of the diversity and malleability of digital media through
programming, and qualities of tangible computing more generally may be drawn
together in mixed reality works. The co-construction of such works offers students a
potentially rich experience of work together, productively and analytically.
Shared grounds for production-based digital media education
In order to better understand the interplay between media technology and media texts, it
is important to recognize that ‘passive’, mediated knowledge of media creation and distribution may be expanded by knowledge that can only be fully developed through the expe-
192
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 193 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
rience of production itself (Buckingham et al. 1995). Through recursive translation
between different modes of engagement with media – creation, experience and reflection –
the interplay between media technology and media texts materialises. By a recursive series
of creation, experience and reflection on experience, the distinctiveness of the context in
which the media-text was created, and the sameness – the affordances and constraints – of
the applied media, may project the particular media-text (i.e. the object of the traditional
critical analysis) (Sem 2006: 112, online). Such recursive translation between different
modes of engagement with media is present in vocational media training and may be very
apparent in interrogative and exploratory contexts of media improvisations. These too
may be understood in the developmental view offered by a Vygotskian framework.
The creation and distribution of digital media may differ significantly from how
former media have been created and distributed – and continue to evolve and diverge at a
rapid pace. Hence, first-hand, recursive and production-based, rather than second-hand,
mediated and passive knowledge of, creation and distribution might be particularly crucial for both the acquisition of digital literacies and in the study of digital media. This is
where secondary mediated knowledge such as theoretical adaptation from neighbouring
disciplines or the potential of a general semiotic approach may reach a boundary. Production-based methods inform studies of digital media with emerging and also distinct
vocabularies and conceptual knowledge of novel digital media forms. Particularly important in digital media studies, such knowledge might level the widely acknowledged distance and risk of misrepresentation between objects and concepts (Liestøl 2003). Delay in
the formalisation of concepts and analytical vocabularies may stymie our framing of digital literacies in media education. Although digital, multimodal communication might be
said to be part of a broader break with tradition, it may compel us to question the precedence of language-based theories of communication and meaning. This, in turn, calls for
conditional responses to challenges of visualisation such as production-based learning
and research methods that may inform both studies of digital media and digital literacy
by way of artifacts that inhabit or embody critical inquiry. Such a means of exploring and
questioning new media arts both creatively and critically may help students – in media
and informatics, as well as young choreographers, digital artists and designers – to meet
the challenges of working in and analysing the digital in culture industries more broadly,
both in their university level studies and for future work.
Interplays of conceptual knowledge and practice
Dynamic interaction between media practice and media theory in media education may
be conceptualised as a dialectic process of translation between language modes, between
‘writing’ and ‘reading’, media-making and media-analysis, in which conceptual knowledge is acquired through a process of theoretical reflection upon practice (Buckingham et
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
193
dk-2008-3.book Page 194 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
al. 1995). Emphasising methods of the humanities and sciences, interactions between
practice and theory may be perceived as translations between ‘synthesis’ and ‘analysis’.
This allows us to acknowledge the implicit concepts (and theories) of practical construction, as well as the latent constructive potential of theory (Liestøl 2001, 2003).
A closely related way of conceptualising the dynamic of practice and theory is to consider it a ‘two-way shuttle of insights between theorising and experimenting’ (Liestøl et
al. 2003). In our view, this emphasises the innovative and explorative potential of production-based method. Part of the dynamic between theory and practice in courses with collaboration such as the one we report on here, is that new competencies emerge and need
to be conceptualised as they have the potential to raise new issues and concepts, or that
known ones need to be identified or labelled. Situated within perspectives of embodied
cultural theory, the notions of translation may be stretched towards embodiment. In Bolter’s view, theory or critique may speak through the artefacts themselves (2003: 28).
The settings of the production-based inquiry presented above may not be the optimal
ones for production-based digital literacy. We believe that production-based digital literacy may benefit from collaborative, explicit exploratory and innovative contexts in which
the practicing student or researcher are encouraged and enabled to enact recursive and
process-oriented translations between media-making and analysing. Given our limited
resources, we have not yet been able to follow through on the views and mediated meaning-making of participants taking part in this work. What would be potentially interesting would be to see how media students might develop their own formulations of the
interplay of media, mediation and participation, and perhaps take these up and on into
new works of their own shaping. In this way, reflection on and in action from design
research (Schön 1987) could be highlighted in new media education.
Concerning the ‘turn’ to contextual approaches to interpretation, Stanley Fish asked
‘Is there a text in this class?’ (Fish 1980), arguing that meaning inheres in readers’ active
engagement with texts. In the context of engaging with dynamic media in contexts of
embodied interaction, (and not simply phenomenologically as if being in this mixed reality was itself enough), we might ask, more plurally, ‘What multimodal expressions and
multiliteracies are there in this environment?’ The challenge to us as educators, students
and researchers is to also address the means by which we work interpretively in the many
layers of designing, implementing and participating in these environments.
Both production-based digital media literacies, education and studies may benefit
from collaborative and explicitly exploratory and innovative contexts in which the practicing student or researcher is encouraged and enabled to enact recursively in process-oriented translations between media-making and analysing. We fully agree with Buckingham (2007: 112) who argues that ‘Education about the media should be seen as an
indispensable prerequisite for education with and through the media…. We need to equip
students to understand and to critique these media.’
194
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 195 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
7. Performative moves
Mixed reality on the move. Photograph of designer-researcher Synne Skjulstad dancing with
the figure in the forest. The short exposure leaves traces of her striped shirt that appear blended into the background. The projected forest scene is actually in front of her.
Stretching multiliteracies
As mentioned earlier, ‘new’ media arts are now a major contributor to the global creative
and culture industries. They inform and influence gaming, exhibition and interaction
design, and the emerging domain of experience design where affective elements are presented as affordances for interacting with installation spaces or environments. Mixed
reality arts allow students and audiences alike to import and explore their own understandings of digital technologies and their spatial and communicative qualities and constraints. With so much attention given to the Web and to the garnering of procedural
knowledge in many of the task-based approaches to learning environments, engaging
students in the kinetic and conceptual experiences of mixed reality environments may
widen their sense of composition from digitally mediated writing and picturing to connections between creative arts and tangible computing. Digital multiliteracies may be
said to be on the move.
Towards designing for performativtiy
Concerning performativity, how we move with dynamic screens and their mediational
kinesis will need to be studied and interpreted by students and critics alike. So too will we
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
195
dk-2008-3.book Page 196 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
need to investigate, by acts of creative composition, just how to design for performativity.
There needs to be space also for students of media, computer science and the arts to also
move from game spaces, such as The World of Warcraft, to differently shaped conceptual
spaces, often ‘offscreen’, but still in the public domain, in galleries, museums and the
mixed realities of urban architectures, design and advertising (see Morrison & Skjulstad
2007; Morrison & Skjulstad forthcoming).
Mixed reality media artworks available at art venues and conferences remind us that
the environments and the affordances we embed and yet leave under-determined to allow
for mediated participation can vary greatly. Flipping and turning between medium and
mediation is what we increasingly experience and what students may need to learn to
produce in anticipation of careers in the creative sector. These activities, situated in a
developmental and production-based approach to technology-enhanced learning, may
realise an extended multimodality that crosses boundaries between media, art, performance and informatics. This multimodality may be explored and enacted through our
designs for movement. It may also be realised by way of our embodied interactions that
include kinetic and proprioceptive aspects of mediated meaning-making.
Media education – outside of art and design schools at higher education level – needs
to consider more broadly the cultural contexts of media use, and to assist students in
developing knowledge about it from both production and analysis. This too demands
that we rethink the notion and arguments for access to hardware, software and knowledge of digital media that has at times been somewhat functionalist as students learn new
tools. For graduate media and informatics students, and others involved in learning to be
choreographers or interaction designers, however, ‘Access needs to be seen not merely in
terms of access to technology or to technical skills, but also to cultural forms of expression
and communication …’ (Buckingham 2007: 115, italics in original). Access to expressive
and communicative cultural forms may be realised through production-based education
and learning to critique ‘new’ media that stretch notions of multiliteracies along with
their unfolding creative practices and critical analysis.
Acknowledgements
This article is a direct result of collaboration on the MULTIMO project at InterMedia,
University of Oslo, funded by the KIM programme, Research Council of Norway. For
details see: http://www.intermedia.uio.no/display/Im2/MULTIMO+-+researching+multimodal+discourses. Reflections on new media arts and their genesis related to Tapet is a
part of an EU Culture 2000 funded project into mixed reality arts to which InterMedia
contributes (GRIG: Guild for Reality Integrators and Generators). This article is an outcome of ongoing work into studying multiliteracies in multiple sites in the Transactions
Research Group, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo, to which we also belong. Our
thanks to the Faculty for their support of the work and to the Department of Media and
196
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 197 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Communication for making the innovation space of the NEWME master’s course in new
media education possible. We are grateful to the choreographer Inger-Reidun Olsen for
her input to Tapet and to Martin Havnør for additional programming and set-up for the
ITU event. Taken together, this work is part of the Communication Design Research
Group at InterMedia; this publication is also an outcome of the Digital Design Research
strategy at the University of Oslo. Critical comments from the reviewers, Synne Skjulstad
and the Communication Design Group at InterMedia have contributed greatly to the
final text.
Notes
1 Lemke (2005) for example looks at the
computer game the SIMS, arguing that
his earlier notion of metamedia literacies, as it were, needs to include understanding of the enactment of place and
time.
2 On Extended and New Media Education, see: http://www.intermedia.uio.no/
extended/. The choreography course
was part of the final year bachelor’s programme and the Oslo National Academy of Dance (Statens ballethøyskole,
led by Toril Bernatekk) and an experimental master’s degree course at the
Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo (led by Andrew Morrison, with Synne Skjulstad).
This took place in autumn 2002/spring
2003. The courses produced four final
year dance productions with integrated
digital media, a student website, a master’s thesis (Sem 2006) and related research publications and presentations.
3 For more information about this piece,
see (Sem 2006): http://folk.uio.no/
idunnsem/practice-based_method/3/
3.3.3.html).
4 In public arts performance, digital scenography and screens too are on the
move. This is evidenced in works in
dance and technology, or in the dynamic scenographies such as that of the
Extended Stage Group (ESG 2004).
5 These activities of theory embodiment
and of improvisation are not easily separated as we may experience while we
create, and reflect while we experience.
References
Auslander, P. (1997). ‘Ontology vs. history.
Making distinctions between the live
and mediatised’. 1997 Performance
Studies Conference. At: http://webcast.
gatech.edu/papers/arch/Auslander.html
Birringer, J. (2003). ‘Dance, the body and
the Internet’. Design and Performance
Lab. Brunel University: London. At:
http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/bodynet.
html
Bolter, J. & Grusin, A. (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bolter, J. (2003). ‘Critical theory and the
challenges of new media’. In Hocks, M.
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
197
dk-2008-3.book Page 198 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
E. & Kendrick, M. R. (Eds.) Eloquent
Images. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 19–
36.
Brown, C. 2006. ‘Learning to dance with
Angelfish: choreographic encounters
between virtuality and reality’. In Broadhurst, S. & Machon, J. (Eds). Performance and Technology: Practices of Verbal
Embodiment and Interactivity. Palgrave
Macmillan: Basingstoke. 85–99.
Buckingham, D. (1998). ‘Introduction:
fantasies of empowerment? Radical
pedagogy and popular culture’. In
Buckingham, D. (Ed.). Teaching Popular
Culture: Beyond Radical Pedagogy. UCL
Press: London. 1–17.
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education.
Literacy, Learning and Contemporary
Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2006). ‘Defining digital
literacy. What do young people need to
know about digital media?’ In Digital
kompetanse. Vol. 1, No. 4. 263–276.
Buckingham, D. (2007). ‘Media education
goes digital: an introduction’. Learning,
Media and Technology. Vol. 32, No. 2.
111–119.
Buckingham, D., Graham, J. & SeftonGreen, J. (1995). Making Media: Practical Production in Media Education. London: The English and Media Centre.
Burn, A. & Parker, D. (2001). ‘Making
your mark: digital inscription, animation and a new visual semiotic’. Education, Communication and Information.
Vol. 1, No. 2. 155–179.
Burn, A. & Durran, J. (2006). ‘Digital
anatomies: analysis as production in
media education’. In Buckingham, D. &
198
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
Willett, R. (Eds). Digital Generations:
Children, Young People, and New Media.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum. 273–293.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). (Eds).
Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the
Design of Social Futures. London: Routledge.
Courchesne, L. (2002). ‘The construction
of experience: turning spectators into
visitors’. In Resier, M. & Zapp, A. (Eds).
New Screen Media. BFI: London. 256–
267.
Deacon, A., Morrison, A. & Stadler, J. (in
press 2008). ‘Multimodal production
and semiotic resources for learning
about film narrative’. In Morrison, A.
(Ed.) Inside Multimodal Composition.
Hampton Press: Cresskill NJ.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
ESG (Extended Stage Group). (2004).
‘Interactive generative stage and
dynamic costumes for Andre Werner’s
“Marlowe: The Jew of Malta”.’ In
Leopoldseder, H., Schopf, C. & Stocker,
G. (Eds). Cyberarts 2004. Ars Electronica/Hatje Cantz: Linz. 130–132.
Fagerjord, A. (2003). Rhetorical Convergence. Earlier Media Influence on Web.
Media Form. Oslo: Unipub forlag.
Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in This
Class?: The Authority of Interpretive
Communities. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Fuller, M. (2005). Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture.
The MIT Press: Cambridge.
Fishwick, P. (2006). (Ed.). Aesthetic Computing. The MIT Press: Cambridge.
dk-2008-3.book Page 199 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Gillette, D. (2005).‘Lumiere ghosting and
the new media classroom’. Kairos. Vol.
9, No 1. Accessed 1 February 2008:
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/9.2/
binder.html?features/gillette/index.html
Grau, W. 2007. (Ed.). MediaArtHistories.
The MIT Press: Cambridge.
Havnør, M. (2006). A Conceptual Framework for Development Iterations of Digital, Interactive Art; System Response
Patterns and Multi-Narrative Temporal
Data Based Presentation. Unpublished
Master’s thesis. Oslo: Department of
Informatics, University of Oslo.
Hawisher, G. & Selfe. C. (1999). (Eds).
Passions, Pedagogies and 21st Century
Technologies. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal
Literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, Literacy and
Learning: a multimodal approach. London: Routledge.
Knobel, M. & Lankshear C. (2007). ‘Sampling “the new” in new literacies’. In
Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (Eds).
A New Literacies Sampler. New York:
Peter Lang. 1–24.
Kress, G. (1999). ‘English’ at the crossroads: rethinking curricula of communication in the context of the turn to
the visual’. In Hawisher, G. and Selfe, C.
(Eds.). Passions, Pedagogies and 21st
Century Technologies. Logan: Utah State
University Press. 66–88.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: the Modes and Media
of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006). ‘Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education’. In Digital
kompetanse. Vol. 1, No.1. 12–24.
Lash, S. & Lury, C. (2007). Global Culture
Industry. The Mediation of Things. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Lemke, J. (2005). ‘Place, pace, and meaning: multimedia chronotopes’. In Norris, S. & Jones, R. (Eds). Discourse in
Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse
Analysis. Routledge: London. 110–122.
Liestøl, G. (2001). ‘Research into the
development of digital media as an
interdisciplinary field based in the sciences and the humanities’. In Liestøl, G.
& Morrison, A. (Eds). Tverrfaglighet og
digitale medier. (Crossdisciplinarity and
Digital Media). Oslo: UniPub/InterMedia. 41–55.
Liestøl. G., Morrison, A. & Rasmussen, T.
(Eds.). (2003). Digital Media Revisited.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Liestøl, G. (2003). ‘“Gameplay”: From
synthesis to analysis (and vice versa):
topics of conceptualisation and construction in digital media’. In Liestøl,
G., Morrison, A. & Rasmussen, T.
(Eds.). (2003). Digital Media Revisited.
Cambridge: The MIT Press. 389–413.
Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. New York: OUP.
Melrose, S. (2006). ‘Bodies without bodies’. In Broadhurst, S. & Machon, J.
(Eds). Performance and Technology:
Practices of Verbal Embodiment and
Interactivity. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. 1–17.
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
199
dk-2008-3.book Page 200 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Morrison, A. (2003a). ‘Dancing with postcolonial theory: digital scenography
and the performance of local culture’.
Norsk medietidsskrift. Vol. 10, No. 2. 28–
56. Available: http://www.medieforskerlaget.no/modules/module_123/proxy.
asp?I=26&C=20&D=2
Morrison, A. (2003b). ‘From oracy to electracies: hypernarrative, place and multimodal discourses in learning’ in Liestol, G., Morrison, A. & Rasmussen, T.
(Eds). Digital Media Revisited. The MIT
Press: Cambridge. 115–154.
Morrison, A. (in press). ‘Views from the
inside out’. In Morrison A. (Ed.). Inside
Multimodal Composition. Hampton
Press: Cresskill.
Morrison, A., Deacon, A. & Stadler, J.
(2005). ‘Designs for learning about film
genre’. Proceedings of In-The-Making.
First Nordic Design Conference, Copenhagen. Available: www.nordes.org
Morrison, A., Sem, I. & Havnør, M. (in
press). ‘Behind the wallpaper: performativity in mixed reality arts’. In Morrison, A. (Ed.) Inside Multimodal Composition. Creskill: Hampton Press.
Morrison, A. & Skjulstad, S. (2007). ‘Talking cleanly about convergence’. In Storsul, T. & Stuedahl, D. (Eds). The Ambivalence of Convergence. Nordicom:
Gothenburg. 217–335.
Morrison, A. & Skjulstad, S. (forthcoming). Literacy – Technology – Cultural
Techniques. How Does Communication
Technology Mediate Culture? In Gentikow, B., Skogseth, E. & Østerud, S.
(Eds.). Literacy and Mediated Cultures.
Creskill NJ: Hampton Press.
200
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
O’Halloran, Kay. (2004). (Ed.). Multimdoal Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Paul, C. (2003). ‘Public Cultural Production Art(software)’. In Stocker, G. &
Schöpf, C. (Eds). CODE: The Language
of Our Time. Osterfildern-Ruit: Hatje
Cantz Verlag. 129–135.
Penny, S. (2004). ‘Towards an aesthetics of
behaviour’, an abridged version of the
paper given at ISEA2004 Tallinn Conference entitled ‘After Interdisciplinarity’.
Reid, A. (2003). ‘New media’s long history
and global future: the Uniplanet project’
Kairos. Vol. 8, No. 1. Accessed 1 February 2008: http://kairos.technorhetoric.
net/8.1/index.html
Royce, T. (2007). ‘Intersemiotic complementarity: a framework for multimodal
discourse analysis’. In Royce, T. &
Bowcher, W. 2006. (Eds). New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse. London: Routledge. 63–109.
Schiller, G. (2005). ‘Awakening the
“dynamic index of the body”: linking
movement awareness methods with
interactive art practice’. International
Journal of Performance Arts and Digital
Media. Vol. 1, No. 3. 179–188.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective
Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sefton-Green, J. (2005). ‘Timelines, timeframes and special effects: soft and creative media production’. Education,
Communication & Information. Vol. 5,
No. 1. 99–110.
dk-2008-3.book Page 201 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Sefton-Greene, J. (2006). New Spaces for
Learning: Developing the Ecology of Outof-School Education. Hawke Research
Institute Working Paper Series. No. 35.
Accessed 1 February 2008. http://
www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/publications/downloads/wp35.pdf
Sem, I. (2006). Practice-based Method.
Exploring Digital Media through the
Dynamics of Practice, Theory, and Collaborative, Multimedia Performance.
Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Media and Communication.
University of Oslo. At: http://folk.uio.no/
idunnsem/practice-based_method/
Schiphorst, T. (2005). ‘Soft, softer, softly:
whispering between the lines’. In Brouwer, J., Fauconnier, S., Mulder, A. &
Nigten, A. (Eds.). aRt&D: Research and
Development in Art. V2_Publishing/
NAI Publishers: Rotterdam 166–176.
Skjulstad, S. & Morrison, A. (2005).
‘Movement in the interface.’ Computers
and Composition. Vol. 22, No. 4. 413–
433.
Skjulstad, S., Morrison, A. & Aaberge, A.
(2002). ‘Researching performance, performing research: dance, multimedia
and learning’. In Morrison, A. (Ed.)
Researching ICTs in Context. InterMedia/UniPub: Oslo. 211–248. Available: http://imweb.uio.no/konferanser/
skikt-02/skikt-research-conferance.html
Sullivan, P. & Porter, J. (1997). Opening
Spaces: Writing Technologies and Critical
Research Practices. Ablex: Greenwich
CN.
van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, Music,
Sound. London: Macmillan Press.
Ulmer, G. (1998). ‘Foreword/forward
(into electracy)’. In Taylor, T. & Ward,
E. (Eds) Literacy Theory in the Age of the
Internet. New York: Columbia University Press. ix–xiii.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the Mind:
A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated
Action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Wysocki, A., Johnson-Eilola, J., Self, C. &
Sirc, G. (2004). Writing New Media.
Logan: Utah State University Press.
Zuniga Shaw, N. & Lewis, M. (2006).
‘Inflecting particles: locating generative
indexes for performance in the interstices of dance and computer science’.
Performance Research. Vol. 11, No. 2.
75–86.
stretching multiliteracies: production-based education & new media
201
dk-2008-3.book Page 202 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
digital kompetanse | 3-2008 | vol. 3 | side 202–221
Berit Bratholm
Berit Bratholm, Høgskolen i Vestfold | Berit.Bratholm@hive.no
Om bruk av digitale
mapper på to grunnskoler
Hvordan kan digitale mapper skape
produktive læringsprosesser for elever?
Abstract
The subject of this article is our experience of working with digital portfolios in primary and lower
secondary school. An important theoretical reference for this work has been Engle & Conant’s article about how productive academic engagement can be fostered by suitable learning conditions.
The project is based on ethnographic methods. I present different factors which are important for
successful interplay between teacher and pupils when working with digital portfolios.
key words
Digital portfolio • productive academic engagement
Innledning
Utdanningspolitiske myndigheter i Norge har de siste årene intensivert kravene om å
utvikle den digitale kompetansen hos barn og unge i opplæringen (Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet 2004a). I den nye læreplanen for opplæringen, Læreplanverket for
kunnskapsløftet (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2006), legges vekten på at elevene utvikler fem
grunnleggende ferdigheter så som å kunne lese, regne, uttrykke seg muntlig og skriftlig
og endelig bruke digitale verktøy. Den digitale kompetansen blir definert som «ferdigheter, kunnskaper, kreativitet og holdninger som alle trenger for å kunne bruke digitale
medier for læring og mestring i kunnskapssamfunnet» (ITU 2005:8). I departementets
«Program for digital kompetanse (2004–2008)» løftes innføring av digitale mapper opp
som et konkret tiltak for å oppnå kompetanseheving på det digitale, med målsetting om
at «innen 2008 skal vurdering med digitale mapper være tatt i bruk på alle nivå i utdanningen» (Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet 2004a: 33).
202
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 203 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Forskning knyttet til området digitale medier og læring, tyder i liten grad på at innføring av IKT i seg selv bidrar til fundamentale endringer i hvordan læringsarbeidet i skolen organiseres (Engelsen 2006; Lipponen 2002; Ludvigsen & Rasmussen 2005). Det synes
likevel å herske stor enighet om at IKT kan bidra til produktive endringer når redskapene
blir koplet til andre didaktiske endringsfaktorer som eksempelvis mapper. Her kan man i
Norge spesielt vise til erfaringer og forskning knyttet til lærerutdanningen (Dysthe &
Engelsen 2003; Engelsen 2006; Hauge 2003; Ludvigsen & Flo 2002; Otnes 2004a; Wittek
2003; Wittek & Havnes 2005). Når det gjelder grunnskolen og den videregående skolen er
det gjennomført mange utviklingsrettede tiltak, men det foreligger imidlertid lite substansiell forskning på dette feltet i Norge.
Temaet for denne artikkelen er et utviklingsarbeid med utprøving av digitale mapper
ved to grunnskoler (1). Formålet med artikkelen er å vise hvilke erfaringer som ble gjort i
elevers læringsarbeid i digitale mapper, og analyseenheten for forsøket var elevenes digitale mapper. Årsakene til at jeg valgte to skoler, en på barnetrinnet og en på ungdomstrinnet, skyldtes at jeg ønsket å sammenlikne hvordan elevers læringsprosesser og læringsutbytte i og med digitale mapper kunne variere ved to ulike skoler (2). Elevene opprettet
ved begge skoler digitale mapper der de gjennom forskjellige dokumentasjonsformer
utarbeidet arbeidsoppgavene sine med digitale læringsressurser. Med digitale læringsressurser menes «pedagogiske redskaper som kan brukes til læringsformål og som utnytter
IKT for å fremme læring via produkter, tjenester og prosesser. Slike ressurser kan koples
til ulike medier og læringsformer» (Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet 2004a: 23).
Utviklingsarbeidets forskningsdesign ble utarbeidet i samarbeid med skolene, og jeg
deltok selv aktivt i forsøkene. I det følgende vil jeg redegjøre for utviklingsarbeidet gjennomført på skolene A og B. Jeg vil så presentere noen hovedfunn basert på etnografiske
metoder for utviklingsarbeidet, med vekt på hvordan digitale mapper bidro til å skape
produktive læringsprosesser for elevene. Lærernes ledelse av elevenes læringsarbeid var
en nøkkelfaktor i forsøket, og jeg vil i den forbindelse vise en modell utarbeidet av Brown
(1992) og videreutviklet av Engle og Conant (2002), som beskriver hvordan lærere kan
legge til rette for produktive læringsbetingelser for elever i klasserommet.
Mitt overordnede forskningsspørsmål blir da: Hvordan og i hvilken grad kan lærere
legge til rette for produktive læringsbetingelser i digitale mapper slik at elever opplever produktive læringsprosesser?
Teoretisk grunnlag og referanseramme
Sentralt i undersøkelsens problemstilling står begrepet «produktive læringsprosesser» og
at disse kan skapes i og med digitale mapper. Begrepet produktive læringsprosesser defineres som at «elevene i samarbeid med andre elever, lærere og andre ressurspersoner konstruerer kunnskap som oppleves relevant, og som er nødvendig for kunne møte mulig-
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
203
dk-2008-3.book Page 204 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
heter og utfordringer som finnes i informasjonssamfunnet» (Larsen & Ludvigsen 2000:
139).
I denne fremstillingen bygger jeg teoretisk på den utviklingsorienterte forskningstilnærmingen Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL), til tross for at IKT ikke blir
anvendt spesielt i denne modellen (Brown 1992: 150). Et viktig overordnet prinsipp i FCL
er at den er forankret i teorier om selvregulert læring og læringens aktive natur hos den
lærende. Videre legges vekt på at den lærende utvikler kjennskap til egne læringsstrategier
og evner å evaluere sin egen tenkning. Prinsippene om samarbeid i læringsfellesskap og
læringskultur står også sentralt hos Brown. Engle og Conant har i lys av Browns modell
FCL utviklet fire prinsipper der læreren legger til rette for produktive læringsbetingelser for
elever i klasserommet (Engle & Conant 2002: 400–401). I lys av FCL ønsker jeg senere å
vise hvordan digitale mapper kan styrke undervisningen ut fra mappenes mediespesifikke egenskaper.
• Problematizing: Students are encouraged to take on intellectual problems […]
• Authority: Students are given authority in addressing such problems […]
• Accountability: Students’ intellectual work is made accountable to others and to disciplinary norms […]
• Resources: Students are provided with sufficient resources to do all of the above […]
Modellen og disse fire prinsippene ovenfor er et verktøy for lærere til «a potentially fruitful way of thinking about how to foster productive disciplinary engagement in learning
environments» (Engle & Conant 2002: 459). Gjennom modellen legger Engle og Conant
vekt på lærerens kompetanse til å lede elevenes læringsprosesser i klassen. De fire prinsippene skal hjelpe læreren til å sekvensiere elevenes læringsarbeid. Læreren reflekterer så
over hvilke av de fire prinsippene som til enhver tid prioriteres i klassens faglige arbeid.
Hos Engle og Conant er det et viktig poeng at læreren foretar en metarefleksjon over sin
pedagogiske praksis i lys av modellens fire prinsipper. Som vi ser her, stiller Engle og
Conant flere viktige kompetansekrav til læreren gjennom de fire prinsippene for at elevene skal kunne lykkes i sin skolefaglige utvikling.
Det første prinsippet angår «problematizing content». Pedagogen skal oppmuntre
elevene til å reise spørsmål og komme med forslag til intellektuelle løsninger snarere enn
at de assimilerer fakta, prosedyrekunnskap og besvarer oppgitte spørsmål. Når elevene
arbeider med et emne i et fag, skal de selv strukturere og disponere fagkunnskapen i en
arbeidsoppgave. Ansvaret for utformingen av oppgaven hviler først og fremst på elevene.
Men det kreves også av læreren at hun er «diskret til stede» og er rede til å veilede de
gruppene som ønsker veiledning. Kapasitetsproblemer kan selvfølgelig oppstå her, dersom læreren er alene om veiledningen av flere grupper. Modellens andre prinsipp, «giving
students authority», angår elevenes autoritet til å produsere kunnskap. Ideelt sett skal
elevene oppleve at de er produsenter av kunnskapen snarere enn at de er konsumenter av
204
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 205 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
den. Det tredje prinsippet fokuserer for det første på den lærendes ansvar for å oppfylle
faglige krav, og for det andre at læringsarbeidet inngår i læringsfellesskapet i klasserommet (intellectual stakeholder). Modellens fjerde prinsipp, «providing relevant resources»,
angår realiseringen av modellens tre prinsipper og å kunne se disse i sammenheng. Videre
påpeker Engle og Conant at en nødvendig ressurs for å kunne realisere modellens fire
prinsipper, er at elevene får tid til å fordype seg og har tilgjengelig all den informasjonen
de skulle trenge for å løse arbeidsoppgaven. Andre ressurser kan være av materiell og teknologisk karakter, så som at datamaskiner og programvare fungerer på en tilfredsstillende
måte. Dette for at elevene skal kunne ha de beste forutsetninger for å oppleve en god
læringsprosess og oppnå et godt læringsresultat.
De fire punktene hos Engle og Conant som inngår i begrepet produktive læringsbetingelser, er en relevant referanseramme for lærere når de skal planlegge undervisningen
samt sette opp kompetansemål for elevene i fagene. Her oppfatter jeg kompetansebegrepet slik: Overordnet vil kompetansebegrepet her sees i lys av teorien om selvregulert
læring som bygger på «troen på at man har de ressursene tilgjengelig som skal til for å
lære og for å løse oppgaver på en effektiv måte» (Bråten 2005: 165–166). Begrepet kompetanse angår elevers ressurser til å tilegne seg kunnskap i fag, produsere kunnskap
sammen med andre i de digitale mappene og reflektere over egne læringsprosesser. Engle
og Conant fokuserer på produktive læringsbetingelser i klasserommet relatert til fagene
litteratur og naturfag, uten direkte å knytte anvendelsen av IKT som et læremiddel inn
mot forutsetninger for å skape læringsbetingelser. I min undersøkelse er begrepet «digitale mapper» sentralt, og hva legger jeg så i begrepet? I denne sammenheng bruker jeg
Helen Barretts definisjon på digital mappe:
An electronic portfolio provides an environment where students can: collect their work in
a digital archive; select specific pieces of work (hyperlink to artifacts) to highlight specific
achievements; reflect on the learning demonstrated in the portfolio, in either text or multimedia form; set goals for future learning (or direction) to improve; and celebrate achievement
through sharing this work with an audience, whether real or virtual. When used in formative, classroom-based assessment, teachers (and peers) can review the portfolio document
and provide formative feedback to students on where they could improve (Barrett 2006: 1).
De digitale mappene blir et sted der elevene kan samle, velge ut og reflektere over sine
arbeider. Videre inviterer den digitale mappen til, ifølge Barrett, å feire oppnådde kompetansemål og læringsresultater. Hvilken forskningsbasert viten og pedagogiske erfaringer
har vi så på dette feltet nasjonalt og internasjonalt?
Tidligere forskning
I studier om lærernes kompetanse i digitale læringsressurser, vektlegger flere forskere
lærernes pedagogiske kompetanse som helt avgjørende for at elevene opplever produktive
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
205
dk-2008-3.book Page 206 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
læringsprosesser i skolen (Ludvigsen, Rasmussen & Solhein 2001; Kankaanranta 2002;
Andresen 2003; Woodward & Nanlohy 2004; Vinje 2004; Hauge, Lund & Vestøl 2007).
Første nødvendige forutsetning for didaktisk og pedagogisk bruk av digitale mapper er at
læreren har meget gode tekniske ferdigheter, ifølge Woodward og Nanlohy. Woodward og
Nanlohy har gjort forsøk med bruk av digitale mapper i høyere utdanning i Australia.
Samspillet mellom den tekniske og pedagogiske kompetanse, fortsetter forfatterne, er
avgjørende for at de digitale mapper blir «fact» og ikke bare «fashion». Dette er avgjørende for å utvikle lærerens didaktiske og pedagogiske kompetanse i bruk av IKT. Pedagogisk
kompetanse gjelder lærernes holdninger og oppfatninger om hvordan de digitale læringsressursene i og med digitale mapper kan fremme læring hos elever. I denne sammenheng
taler Bent B. Andresen om e-læringsledelse. Begrepet e-læringsledelse betyr at lærerne
organiserer «aktiviteterne i det fysiske og virtuelle læringsmiljø på måder, der er optimale
i forhold til elevernes forudsætninger, interesser og potentialer» (Andresen 2003: 91).
Ifølge Andresen skal pedagogisk bruk av IKT tilgodese vilkår og rammer for elevenes
læring på en differensierende måte, slik at gruppene lavt, middels og høyt presterende
elever får tilpassede utfordringer i arbeidsoppgavene. Et annet sentralt poeng og pedagogisk fortrinn med digitale læringsressurser er at læreren kan etablere rammer og støttestrukturer for elevene i deres læringsarbeid. Differensierte arbeidsoppgaver publisert på
Internett samt veiledning i hvordan elevene kan løse oppgavene sammen i sine åpne, digitale mapper, kan være et eksempel. Resultater fra en av delrapportene fra den nasjonale
satsningen, PILOT, viser også at «de aller fleste lærerne og elevene helt til siste fase av prosjektet så på data som verktøy […] som elevene skulle beherske uten at bruken ble knyttet
til læreprosessen i de øvrige fagene» (Vinje 2004: 91).
Hauge, Lund og Vestøl understreker også at «et like viktig aspekt er at lærere designer
seg selv inn i aktivitetene» (Hauge et al. 2007: 17). Dette betyr at lærere og elever sammen
spiller viktige roller i undervisningsdesignet for læringsaktivitetene. Læreren planlegger
således ikke bare mål, arbeidsoppgaver og evaluering for elevenes læringsarbeider, men
deltar selv i elevenes læringsarbeider. Designbegrepet angår ifølge Hauge et al. de kulturelle ressurser som har betydning for elevenes læring. Ludvigsen et al. (2001) mener
pedagogiske støttestrukturer er en viktig forutsetning for bruk av digitale medier i opplæringen. De fremhever at det vil være viktig å utvikle pedagogiske støttestrukturer der
lærerne støtter opp om elevenes kunnskapsproduksjon (Ludvigsen et al. 2001:111). Ikke
bare blir IKT et verktøy for å styrke utdanningens kvalitet, men det støtter også opp
under de pedagogiske målene. Det er av avgjørende betydning at læreren er åpen for elevenes initiativ i å bruke mediet. Elev- og lærerrollen får i denne sammenheng nye tapninger. Lærerrollen blir utvidet fra å være kunnskapsformidler til også å være medkonstruktør av kunnskap i elevers læringsarbeid. Samlet sett vil lærernes didaktiske og
pedagogiske kompetanse i IKT ha betydning for om elevene opplever produktive læringsprosesser.
206
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 207 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
De siste årene har det blitt publisert artikler og bøker om pedagogiske erfaringer med
digitale mapper i hele utdanningsløpet, nasjonalt og internasjonalt (Kankaanranta 2002;
Dysthe & Engelsen 2003; Otnes 2003; Woodward & Nanlohy 2004; Vinje 2004, Engelsen
& Winje 2005; Erstad 2005; Karlsen & Wølner 2006; Øhra 2004, 2006; Utdanningsdirektoratet 2006). Hva vet man så om hvilke fortrinn digitale mapper har i grunnskoleelevers
læringsarbeid?
Otnes redegjør for at det er på flere områder digitale medier gir gevinst i arbeids- og
læringssammenheng (Otnes 2003). De mediespesifikke virkemidlene gir nye muligheter
for å skape tekster, strukturere tekster og formidle kunnskap. Tekster i digitale mapper er
dynamiske og prosessuelle fordi de kan forbedres, utvides og oppdateres (Otnes 2003:
109). I de digitale mappene dokumenterer elevene sine arbeidsoppgaver. De åpne, digitale mappene blir et nytt verktøy som gir gruppen elever innsyn i hverandres mapper. På
den måten kan elevene dele kunnskaper og reflektere over medelevers arbeider og løsningsforslag på den samme oppgaven. De digitale mappene kan være utgangspunkt for
digitale nettverk elevene imellom. Engelsen hevder i sin artikkel at potensialet ved IKT er
knyttet til tre forhold for elevers læringsbetingelser (Engelsen 2003). Først dreier det seg
om at læreren utvikler læringshverdagen for elevene i retning av mer fokus på helhetlig
didaktisk perspektiv, og dernest legger til rette for samarbeidslæring og kunnskapsbygging blant elevene. Det tredje forholdet hos Engelsen angår at IKT bidrar til «ei reell overføring av ansvar frå undervisar til den lærande» (Engelsen 2003: 125).
Kankaanranta har gjort flere undersøkelser i Finland med den pedagogiske bruken av
digitale mapper i barnehagen og i grunnskolen (Kankaanranta 2002). I sine studier konkluderer Kankaanranta med at målbevisst bruk av teknologisk verktøy fra småbarnsalder
bidrar til gevinster i læringserfaringer på grunnskolens nivå. Allerede i 1996 satte finske
myndigheter som mål i styringsdokumentene å skape like muligheter for alle barn til å bli
vant med bruken av datamaskiner. Kankaanranta vektlegger tidlig bruk av datamaskiner,
så tidlig som førskolealder, og dens betydning for senere holdninger hos elever til datamaskiner som læringsverktøy. Sist, men ikke minst understreker Kankaanranta betydningen av lærernes adekvate teknologiske kompetanse og motivasjon for å bruke IKT i
læringssammenheng for små barn, og at lærerne også følger med på utviklingen i dette
feltet (Kankaanranta 2002). Woodward og Nanlohy viser i sine studier fra forsøk med
digitale mapper i høyere utdanning i Australia at studentene først må besitte tekniske ferdigheter. Videre vektlegger Woodward og Nanlohy at «the digital portfolio project needs
to be developed in a staged reiterative process that focuses the author on meeting the
needs of both their intended audience and the exploration of their own learning» (Woodward & Nanlohy 2004: 236). Denne prosessen forutsetter kritisk evaluering og respons fra
medstudenter, fortsetter forfatterne.
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
207
dk-2008-3.book Page 208 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Metodiske overveielser
Otnes drøfter forskningsetiske overveielser med å forske rundt åpne, digitale mapper
(Otnes 2004b). Et viktig poeng hos forfatteren er at «har man først innført prinsippet
med slike mapper, har man samtidig innført et prinsipp om åpenhet, kunnskapsdeling og
samarbeid» (Otnes 2004b: 290). Til tross for at utviklingsprosjektet ved de to skolene som
jeg omtaler her ble utarbeidet i et lukket system i Classfronter, var ideologien rundt prosjektet kunnskapsdeling, samarbeidslæring og åpenhet om arbeidene for alle prosjektets
aktører. Av denne grunn vil de forskningsetiske argumenter i Otnes’ artikkel også ha sin
gyldighet for min studie av elevers digitale mapper.
Prosjektet trekker veksler på etnografiske metoder gjennom å studere hvordan elevene
arbeidet med oppgavene i de digitale mappene. Datasettet besto av deltakende observasjon, dokumentstudier, uformelle intervjuer av elever og lærere, feltnotater, studier av
elevarbeider og erfaringsseminar med elever og lærere på høyskolen etter prosjektavslutning. Under forsøkene var jeg ti dager på de to skolene A og B, og feltnotatene utgjorde til
sammen 85 sider. Elevenes digitale mapper utgjør feltarbeidets elevarbeider. Med etnografiske metoder fikk jeg kjenne på pulsen elevenes og lærernes erfaringer med digitale
mapper under forsøksperioden. Jeg ønsket å få nær kunnskap og kjennskap til forsøkene.
Hvilke erfaringer gjorde elevene i de digitale mappene på de to skolene?
Jeg triangulerte metoder for datainnsamlingen, og jeg hadde nærhet, mangfold og
fleksibilitet til forskningsfeltet (Kalleberg 1992: 6). Nærhet til feltet ble sikret ved at jeg
var flere dager ved hver skole under forsøket. Alle aktører i feltet – som skolenes elever,
lærere og ledere – bidro til en mangfoldig representasjon. Når det gjelder fleksibilitet,
beveget jeg meg raskt på flere steder mellom arbeidsgrupper av elever, og jeg oppsøkte
situasjoner så sant jeg ble tipset av lærerne og elevene. Selve feltarbeidet blir likevel både
systematisk og noe tilfeldig idet jeg som forsker var prisgitt å være på ett sted av gangen,
tross alt. Hvis designet hadde bygd på et større forskerteam, hadde dette kunnet løst noe
av denne svakheten ved dette forsøket.
Fallgruvene ved å bruke etnografiske metoder kan være flere. Forsøkets design bygde
på den forutsetning at digitale mapper skulle opprettes og ville kunne bidra til produktive
læringsprosesser. Som forsker bestemte jeg forskningsdesignet, selv om jeg lot skolene
påvirke designet til en viss grad med hensyn til varigheten og innholdet av forsøkene. Jeg
eide til syvende og sist forskningsdesignet, men i arbeidet med denne artikkelen har jeg
også fortløpende vurdert hvilke data som skulle brukes i fremstillingen. Noen av forskningsresultatene kom imidlertid overraskende på meg. Forskningsdesignet og mine positive, entusiastiske holdninger til å anvende digitale mapper i læringsforløp, kan nok også
til en viss grad ha påvirket forsøkets resultater.
208
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 209 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Kontekst for undersøkelsen: Presentasjon av skolene
Skolene fremstod som utviklingsorienterte med handlingsplaner for IKT. I læringsplattformen Classfronter opprettet elevene digitale mapper. Ved barneskolen var det innredet
eget datarom med datamaskiner for en hel klasse. På ungdomsskolen var datamaskinene
integrert og spredt i undervisningsrommene.
Elever og lærere hadde tilgang på ulike digitale læringsressurser som datamaskiner,
skrivere, scannere, kameraer, videokameraer med lyd og prosjektorer. Det ble anvendt
Microsoft Office, herunder Word og Power point, samt e-post og Internett.
Strukturen i de digitale mappene var som følger: Elevene opprettet en digital mappe
med arbeidsmappe. Alle deltakerne i klasserommet hadde innsyn i de andres mapper.
Elevene utarbeidet ulike oppgaver, så som Power point-presentasjoner der tekst, lyd og
bilde var sentrale elementer. På begge skoler kunne mappeoppgavene i de ulike formater
være et felles møtested for gruppearbeid. Noen elever arbeidet alene i prosjektperioden.
Skole A – barneskolen. Ledelsen pekte ut utviklingsorienterte lærere og skolens IKTansvarlige til å delta i dette forsøket, fordi ledelsen ønsket at lærere og elever skulle oppleve positive sider med digitale mapper – og at digitale mapper skulle bli et virkemiddel i
å styrke elevenes digitale kompetanse.
Skole B – ungdomsskolen. Lærernes digitale kompetanse var et viktig kvalifikasjonskrav ved tilsetting på skolen. Ledelsen bestemte at 10. trinn skulle delta fordi trinnet
hadde få elever, og fagmessig var timingen god for å delta i forsøket. Trinnleder for 10.
trinn fikk prosjektansvaret for forsøket.
I tabell 1 viser jeg forsøkets organisering. I den første kolonnen har jeg stilt opp antall
elever, elevenes alder, antall elevgrupper og lærere som deltok i forsøkene. Skolene A og B er
ført opp i den andre og tredje kolonnen for å vise likheter og forskjeller ved de to skolene.
Tabell 1: Forsøkets organisering
Skole A – Barneskolen
Skole B – Ungdomsskolen
Elever
80
50
Alder: elever
10–11 år
16 år
Elevgrupper
33
22
Lærere
7
5
Tema
Trafikk og sykkel
Det skapende menneske – elevenes valg
Fag
Naturfag, samfunnsfag og
norsk
Norsk, samfunnsfag, matematikk, natur- og miljøfag, kunst- og håndverksfag, kroppsøving og
kristendoms-, religions- og livssynsorientering
Varighet
2 uker
4 uker
Digitale mapper
Alle
Halvparten av elevene
Presentasjon av
prosjektarbeidet
En dag
Flere dager
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
209
dk-2008-3.book Page 210 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
I hvilken grad maktet lærerne å legge til rette for produktive læringsbetingelser? Dette
spørsmålet vil jeg drøfte i neste avsnitt.
Resultater av undersøkelsen ved skolene
De digitale mappene med arbeidsmapper var strukturert likt ved begge skolene. Ved skole
A, barneskolen, var viktige pedagogiske tiltak for det første at lærerne utarbeidet definerte
læringsmål med obligatoriske arbeidsoppgaver. De skulle publiseres i digitale mapper. Da
elevene arbeidet med arbeidsoppgavene, var de aktive produsenter av nye kunnskaper.
For det andre styrket de digitale mappene undervisningen, fordi det digitale nettverket
lagde flere kontaktpunkter mellom elever, lærere og verdensveven. Utveksling av kunnskaper foregikk på kryss og tvers i klasserommet. Dette fortrinnet løftes frem også av
Hauge et al. idet digitale nettverk kan være «potensial for å oppheve begrensninger i tid
og rom» (Hauge et al. 2007: 16).
Ved skole B, ungdomsskolen, hadde forsøket en løsere organisering. Tematisk bestemte
elevene selv sine arbeidsoppgaver og presentasjonsform med veiledning fra lærerne. Elevene avgjorde om de skulle arbeide gruppebasert eller individuelt. Under forsøksperioden
hadde hver lærer et individuelt ansvar for at elevene brukte de digitale mappene som
læringsverktøy. Det var altså ikke et teamansvar å planlegge og gjennomføre forsøket med
digitale mapper slik forsøket var organisert på skole A. Felles drøftinger og forståelse ved
skole A av forsøkets mål i lærerteamene var en viktig suksessfaktor for å kunne gi god
pedagogisk støtte til elevene. Fra tidligere forsøk er det nettopp understreket viktigheten
av at «aktørene er kjent med og deltar i drøftingene av hvordan endringsprosjekter skal
organiseres …» (Vinje 2004: 92).
Ved skole B, til forskjell fra skole A, sluttførte omtrent halvparten av elevene sine
arbeider gjennom andre dokumentasjonsformer enn i de digitale mappene. Med andre
dokumentasjonsformer kan her nevnes fremføring av et moteshow og en revy. Med
nevnte dokumentasjonsformer ble kunnskap konstruert, og her kan vi vel stille spørsmål
ved om kunnskapen er relevant i samfunnsmessig betydning, og om den er «nødvendig
for å kunne møte muligheter og utfordringer som finnes i informasjonssamfunnet» (Larsen & Ludvigsen 2000: 139). Elevene samarbeidet og forhandlet om utformingen og innholdet av sine oppgaver, noen elevgrupper uten at oppgavene fikk en digital touch, mens
halvparten opprettet digitale mapper. Elevene ved skole B viste en stor variasjonsbredde i
oppgaver med bl.a. følgende temaer: «Seiling», «Våpenkappløpet mellom USA og Sovjet»
og «Ord–bilde» (dikt og bilder).
I hvilken grad opplevde elevene produktive læringsprosesser i de digitale mappene?
Under prosjektets siste dag ved skole A, da elevene presenterte sine mapper for hverandre,
kom det fram at mange hadde produsert langt mer enn hva som på forhånd var stilt opp
som minimumskrav for perioden. Stolt kunne elevene vise de digitale mappene til klasse-
210
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 211 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
kamerater, lærere og foreldre. En gruppe oppsummerte sine erfaringer fra forsøket slik:
«Vi lærte av hverandre, og det er lettere å samarbeide på data. Vi ble bedre kjent med
hverandre på fritiden». Utsagnet vitner om at elevene opplevde arbeidet i digitale mapper
som et verktøy til å dele kunnskap og samarbeide om å skrive fagtekster. Dessuten
uttrykte disse elevene at de «hadde det hyggelig sammen» når de «diskuterte og ble enige
til slutt». Arbeidsformen på skolen ble også et sosialt foretak, idet elevene også var mer
sammen på fritiden etter arbeidets avslutning. Nye relasjoner i klassemiljøet, herunder
mellom gutter og jenter, ble utviklet.
I det følgende vil jeg i lys av Engle og Conant (2002) vise og drøfte hvorledes to digitale mapper kunne være et verktøy for at elevene opplevde produktive læringsprosesser.
I tabell 2 har jeg i første kolonne satt opp de fire prinsippene hos Engle og Conant. I presentasjonen av innholdet i to gruppers elevproduksjoner i digitale mapper, en fra hver
skole, tar jeg utgangspunkt i de fire prinsippene hos Engle og Conant.
Tabell 2. To elevproduksjoner i digitale mapper
Analyse av
elevarbeid
Skole A
Skole B
Fredrik, André og Helge: «Trafikkregler og sykler». Power point 13 sider
http://bredband.prosjekt.hive.no/documents/andremfl_000.ppt
Christian og Trond: «Kampen om
månen».
Power point 26 bilder derav 6 lydfiler
nedlastet.
http://bredband.prosjekt.hive.no/documents/kapplop.ppt
Problemati- Obligatorisk oppgave med artikulerte
sering
læringsmål der elevene skulle utarbeide oppgavene i Word-dokument
eller i Power point.
Ikke definerte dokumentasjonsformer i
digitale formater. Romfartens historie,
USA–Sovjet, Gagarin, Armstrong,
Collins, Aldrin
Autoritet
Ulike sykler med syv bilder, sykkelregler, sykkelskilt.
Elevene definerte fokus og avgrensning
for oppgaven.
Ansvar
Elevene samarbeidet om tolkning av
oppgaven, utforming av oppgaven,
skriving av tekst og nedlasting av bilder.
Digitale verktøy – dominerende aktivitetsformer?
Elevene tok ansvar innholdsmessig, teknologisk og prosessuelt for arbeidet
Ressurser
Digitale verktøy – dominerende aktivitetsformer?
Gruppen fikk veiledning av lærer, pro- Gruppen hadde stor tilgang på teknolosjektleder og av medelever.
giske ressurser, uten spesiell pedagogisk
støtte i innholdsprosessen.
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
211
dk-2008-3.book Page 212 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Problematisering
Skole A: Gruppen prioriterte innenfor arbeidsoppgavens ordlyd å presentere bilder av syv
ulike sykler. Via Internett fikk gruppen utvidet sin forståelse av begrepet sykkel ved å laste
ned bilder av ulike sykler som tandem, velociped og bmx. Bildene ga på en god måte
begrepet et konkret og humoristisk innhold. Elevene fikk veiledning og støtte i innholdsprosessen av lærerne sine. Samspillet mellom elever i gruppen og gruppens samspill med
lærerne i utformingen av den digitale mappen ble et fruktbart samarbeid.
Skole B: Elevene avgrenset selv temaet «Kampen om månen» og problemstillingen
uten særlig innflytelse fra veilederen sin. De to elevene inspirerte hverandre til å definere
sitt prosjekt videre. De så de mediespesifikke egenskapene ved de digitale mappene som
et godt verktøy for utformingen av oppgaven.
Autoritet
Skole A: På et selvstendig grunnlag ut fra arbeidsoppgavens læringsmål og ordlyd, utarbeidet gruppen en Power point-presentasjon bestående av egne tekster og bilder lastet ned fra
Internett. Elevene benyttet sin autoritet til å bestemme innholdet gjennom å skape sin
egen tekst i presentasjonen. Videre lagde de en tekst med sykkelregler over to sider.
212
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 213 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Skole B: Gruppen utarbeidet en Power point-presentasjon med hele 26 bilder, hvorav syv
tettpakket med tekst. Mye av teksten var lastet ned fra Internett. Innledningsvis redegjør
gruppen for romfartens historie, videre om sentrale personer slik som Jurij Gagarin, Neil
Armstrong m.fl. og våpenkappløpet mellom USA og Sovjet. Teksten om Gagarin viser
hvilke faktaopplysninger gruppen skrev inn i teksten sin om Gagarin. Gruppen lastet ned
lyd og film som også bidro til å utforme oppgaven. At elevene fikk tilgang til film med
lydfiler, bidro til at historiske øyeblikk ble autentiske for elevene og lærerne. Flere elever
og lærere samlet seg rundt datamaskinen da gruppen hadde gjort sine funn på Internett.
Nærmere begivenhetene kunne verken elever eller lærere komme til Krustsjovs møte med
Gagarin tidlig på 1960-tallet.
Ansvar
Skole A: Datamaskinen var læringsressursen i å skrive tekster. Oppgaven ble lagret i den
digitale mappen. Samspillet elevene imellom og mellom elever og lærere og datamaskinen, utgjorde læringsarenaen. Språket, både det skriftlige og muntlige, ble et viktig element i det å ta ansvar i læringsprosessen. Hauge et al. understreker at det «konstrueres
mening som dialog – gjennom språk – og gjennom et nytt uttrykk i grenselandet mellom
skriftlig og muntlig, multilogen» (Hauge et al. 2007: 37).
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
213
dk-2008-3.book Page 214 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Skole B: Gjennom tekst, bilder og lydfiler produserte elevene sin egen originale presentasjon. Gruppen tok i stor grad ansvar for prosjektets fremdrift, utforming, innhold
og presentasjon. Som en kuriositet kan nevnes at de utvidet klasserommet, siden gruppen
korresponderte med e-post med landets nestor i 40 år for romfartens utvikling og historie, Erik Tandberg. E-post gjorde det enklere å få svar på spørsmål, og informasjonen fra
Internett stimulerte elevene til å erverve seg nye kunnskaper på området. Fra lærerhold
ble det uttalt at IKT stimulerte denne gruppen til nye arbeidsformer og styrket samspillet
mellom de to elevene. Særlig den ene av gruppens medlemmer fikk en ny rolle i elevgruppen. Det virket som elevens kunnskaper i IKT ga ham en sterkere faglig og sosial kompetanse i elevgruppen. Han hevet sin status på trinnet, fordi han behersket teknologien og
hjalp dermed sine medelever.
Ressurser
Skole A: Først og fremst utgjorde gruppens medlemmer en gjensidig ressurs for hverandre i arbeidsprosessen. Lærerne drøftet e-læringsledelse og ulike metoder for veiledning i
og med de digitale mappene. Videre drøftet lærerne didaktiske prinsipper for å anvende
digitale mapper. Drøftingene bidro til at implementeringen av digitale mapper ble et
teamansvar og ikke et individuelt ansvar for hver lærer.
Skole B: Gruppene fikk noe veiledning underveis. De digitale mediene og den åpne
arbeidsformen for arbeidsoppgavene motiverte elevene til større innsats under forsøket.
Ut fra egne deltakende observasjoner og i samtaler med lærerne ved skolene A og B
fikk jeg inntrykk av at mange elever samarbeidet godt og virket motiverte for prosjektarbeidet i digitale mapper. Spørsmålet blir om de digitale mappene alene kunne ta hele
æren for de gode resultatene. Designet for forsøket og forskningsspørsmålene kunne til
en viss grad bidra til at jeg fikk de svar jeg ønsket å oppnå. Som tidligere nevnt, var jeg
noe overrasket over de gode resultatene på skole A, idet alle elever opprettet og i mer eller
mindre grad opplevde produktive læringsprosesser i de digitale mappene i løpet av to
uker! Ved første inntrykk fremstod skole B som mest utviklingsorientert og moderne.
Her skulle jeg ta grundig feil, i den forstand at lærerne ved skole A hadde en bedre didaktisk og pedagogisk kompetanse når det gjaldt bruken av de mediespesifikke egenskaper
som kan benyttes i læringssammenheng i de digitale mappene. Lærerteamet arbeidet systematisk, satte opp felles mål for perioden, fikk skolert seg i bruken av digitale mappene
og var lojale til forsøkets målsettinger.
Andre forskningsmetoder kunne gitt andre resultater om digitale mapper, dersom
deltakerne i undersøkelsen hadde vært stilt fritt i å velge andre arbeidsmåter. Etter at forsøkene var avsluttet på skole A, uttalte lærerne at mange elever presterte mer enn vanlig i
de to ukene forsøket pågikk. De hevdet at IKT bidro til produktive endringer i læringsmiljøet, i samspillet mellom elever–elever og elever–lærere, fordi digitale læringsressurser
214
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 215 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
kombinert med de fire prinsippene for produktive læringsbetingelser hos Engle og Conant utgjorde et helhetlig didaktisk perspektiv i forsøkene. Arbeidet med de digitale mappene virket fremmende sosialt idet lærerne opprettet nye samarbeidsgrupper, og samarbeidet førte til at elevene ble kjent med hverandre på nye måter og vennskapsbånd
oppstod. Jeg fikk også inntrykk av at de fleste elevene opplevde gleden av å skape nye tekster samt eierskap og mestring av arbeidsoppgavene, slik også Engelsen (2003) og Otnes
(2003) understreker i sine studier. IKT ble her brukt i flere fagområder, og de digitale
læringsressursene utløste nye kompetanser hos elevene. En gruppe ved skole A uttalte for
eksempel at forsøket bidro til at gutter og jenter samarbeidet på nye måter. Arbeidet med
og rundt de digitale mappene oppfattet elever og lærere som et medium for å utvikle
elevenes evne til å uttrykke seg muntlig og fremmet sosial kompetanse på tvers av kjønn.
Teknologien tydeliggjorde tenkning og meningsdannelse som sosiale prosesser, dels ved
hjelp av språket, slik Hauge et al. viser i sine studier (Hauge et al. 2007). Elevene ved skole
B uttalte at flere elevgrupper ved skolen var motivert for oppgaven i digitale mapper, og
de var raskt i gang med nytt gruppearbeid etter forsøkets fire uker.
Diskusjon av resultater
Avslutningsvis ønsker jeg å ta noen forbehold før jeg diskuterer forsøkets resultater. Forsøkets design bygde på en (positiv) forutsetning om at digitale mapper kunne legge til
rette for produktive læringsbetingelser med det som resultat at elevene kunne oppleve
produktive læringsprosesser. Et alternativt formulert forskningsspørsmål kunne være:
Hvordan opplever du å arbeide i digitale mapper? Med et slikt spørsmål kunne jeg fått
svar på elevenes opplevelser om digitale mapper av positiv og negativ karakter. En kritisk
innvending til undersøkelsens forskningsspørsmål kunne være at jeg så å si la svarene i
munnen på deltakerne i undersøkelsen.
Etter at forsøkene var avsluttet, er det noen erfaringer som ble gjort ved de to skolene
som kan ha betydning for videre pedagogisk praksis. Ut fra mine erfaringer ved de to skolene har det blitt klart for meg de mange forholdene som spiller inn og som har betydning for å utvikle produktive læringsprosesser for elevene. Dette henger tett sammen med
lærernes didaktiske og pedagogiske kompetanse. Å peke ut et eller flere spesifikke forhold
eller årsaker til suksessfaktorer lar seg ikke gjøre, og dette ville vært en banalisering av
kompleksiteten i hele feltet.
Det er to forhold som jeg mener har betydning for i hvilken grad de digitale mappene
bidro til produktive læringsprosesser for elevene. Det første forholdet angår lærernes
kompetanse, og det andre gjelder elevenes kompetanse under forsøket. Først vil jeg vise
positive handlinger lærerne utførte under forsøkene som jeg mener var suksessfaktorer
for å opprette produktive læringsprosesser for elevene. De tre positive handlingene utgjør
lærernes didaktiske og pedagogiske kompetanse:
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
215
dk-2008-3.book Page 216 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
1. Lærernes evne til å samarbeide i lærerteam
2. Lærernes kompetanse til å utarbeide et didaktisk helhetsopplegg
3. Lærernes motivasjon til å utvikle e-læringsledelse og bruke IKT.
For det første var en avgjørende suksessfaktor for forsøket at lærerne hadde vilje og ønske
om å samarbeide i team. Dette innebar at lærerne seg imellom hadde opparbeidet en
samarbeidskultur, undervisningsdesign og møtepunkter der faglige spørsmål ble luftet,
drøftet og løst fortløpende. Disse momentene blir støttet, som jeg tidligere har vist, av
Vinje (2004) og Hauge et al. (2007). Dessuten var det et avgjørende forhold at møte- og
undervisningsplanene ble fulgt lojalt til punkt og prikke. Med så mange involverte i forsøket var det en absolutt nødvendighet at alle lærere var i tett kontakt og dialog, spesielt
med tanke på de situasjoner der det var nødvendig med kursendringer. Ikke minst støttet
lærerne hverandre fortløpende med hensyn til tekniske løsninger og i faglige spørsmål.
Men ikke minst delte lærerne begeistret også de gode erfaringene underveis. Til tross for
at det oppstod en del tekniske problemer, så som at Internett falt ut og «dataen klikka»,
opprettholdt lærerne motet og styringsfarten mht. pedagogisk, teknisk og faglig ledelse
under forsøket. Lærerne var enige om at innen en bestemt dato skulle arbeidet være ferdigstilt, og elevene skulle presentere sine arbeider i klassene.
Forsøkets andre suksessfaktor var lærernes kompetanse i å skape produktive læringsbetingelser for elevene i lys av de fire prinsippene hos Engle og Conant (2002). Konkret
innebar dette at lærerne la til rette for at elevene fikk ansvar, autoritet og ressurser til å
utforme sine problemstillinger i de digitale mappene. Ungdomsskoleelevene fikk ansvar
og autoritet til å velge tema og problemstillinger for sitt arbeid. Elevene opplevde en reell
mulighet for medvirkning til tema, innhold og arbeidsform. På den måten fikk elevene
helhetsforståelse i fagene gjennom tverrfaglige emner. En del elever benyttet tiden godt,
og fordypet seg i temaer og uttrykksformer som de opplevde som viktig. To jenter lagde
en vakker Power point-presentasjon bestående av bilder fra naturen, egne dikt og dikt fra
verdenslitteraturen. Hele presentasjonen ble akkompagnert til klassisk musikk.
Men under forsøkene ble lærernes veilederkompetanse satt på en stor prøve. Å utvikle
veilederkompetanse er en utfordring lærerutdanningen må ta på alvor, ut fra de kompetansekravene hele skoleverket setter til lærerne. Når det gjaldt ressurssituasjonen under
forsøkene, kom det også frem at ekstra bevilgninger i form av flere lærere og IKT-support
var suksessfaktorer ved den skolen der alle elever fikk opprettet digitale mapper. I arbeidet med digitale mapper inspirert av Engle og Conants modell (2002), mener jeg et viktig
kriterium for suksess er at læreren gir fra seg noe av sin funksjon som kunnskapsformidler. Sammen kan elever og lærere utforme læringsdesign «som et resultat av hva elever og
lærer gjør sammen i undervisningen» (Hauge et al. 2007: 195). I stedet blir elevene kunnskapsformidlere for hverandre, og de blir også aktive i å utvikle og konstruere egen kunnskap. I dette forsøket er det blitt vist at de digitale læringsressursene stimulerte elevene til
216
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 217 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
positive læringserfaringer. Lærerne veiledet elevene, og skillet mellom lærer og elev ble til
en viss grad utvisket idet de digitale læringsressursene var et nytt medium som også
skapte nye møteplasser for så vel elever som lærere.
Forsøkets tredje suksessfaktor gjaldt lærerteamets digitale kompetanse konkretisert i
ferdigheter i bruk av IKT, en såkalt «ICT driving license». Et viktig forhold var at teamet
hadde en egen «kjørelærer» som hadde hovedansvaret for IKT-support. IKT-support
trengtes både for elever og lærere. Det var en kritisk faktor at den tekniske flaskehalsen ble
åpnet umiddelbart og ikke var i veien for videre faglig fremdrift i å anvende de digitale
læringsressursene i de digitale mappene. Lærernes tekniske kompetanse utviklet seg
parallelt med den didaktiske kompetansen. Nye kunnskaper om hvordan de digitale
læringsressursene kunne brukes, ga dermed gevinster i undervisnings- og læringssammenheng. De digitale læringsressursene så som Word og digitale foto- og filmkameraer
motiverte og utfordret lærerne og elevene til å ta ansvar for og definere løsninger på
arbeidsoppgavene utformet av lærerne. Fravær av teknisk kompetanse hos lærerteamet
medførte at elevene ved skole B ikke i samme grad opplevde de digitale mappenes fortrinn. Vinje understreker at ledelsen ved den enkelte skole må «se/forstå sammenhenger
mellom organiseringen […] og de læringsprosesser disse organiseringene fremmer»
(Vinje 2004: 92). Det er et ledelsesansvar å styrke og bygge opp lærernes IKT-kompetanse. Å anvende digitale læringsressurser utfordrer også vår oppfatning av lærerrollen i
møte med elevene. I lys av Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet (Utdanningsdirektoratet
2006), der elevene skal utvikle de fem grunnleggende ferdigheter, herunder bruke digitale
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
217
dk-2008-3.book Page 218 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
verktøy, er det et avgjørende poeng at lærerstudenter utvikler digital kompetanse slik at
de didaktisk og pedagogisk evner å bruke digitale læringsressurser i sin yrkesutøvelse.
Hvilke positive erfaringer gjorde så elevene under forsøkene på de to skolene? I hvilken grad opplevde elevene de digitale mappene positivt i læringssammenheng? I de
videre drøftingene må det forbehold tas at jeg gjorde ikke et sammenliknende forsøk mellom bruk av/ikke bruk av digitale mapper. Dermed kan jeg ikke fastslå at mappene i seg
selv var den eneste årsaken til datasettets resultater. Når det er sagt, ville jeg redegjøre for
mine erfaringer fra to skoler der digitale mapper var i bruk. Datasettet viste at elevene
opplevde nye læringsarenaer, og de ble mer aktive i sin egen læringsprosess hvor arbeidet
med de digitale læringsressursene fikk en fremtredende betydning.
De digitale mappene ble en ny og positivt opplevd undervisnings- og læringsarena for
mange elever og lærere. For det første ble skoletiden utvidet under forsøket, og elevene
opprettet nye møteplasser for skolearbeidet. De digitale læringsressursene utvidet så å si
klasserommet; digitale nettverk ble opprettet siden elevene arbeidet med skoleoppgavene
hjemme hos hverandre. De møttes hjemme rundt PCer og digitale filmkameraer. I og
med de digitale mappene ble det synlig og tydelig for hele klassen at elevene fikk ferdigstilt arbeidsoppgavene. Elevene presenterte sine digitale mapper i klassen gjennom
«miniforedrag». I foredragene kom det frem et mangfold av løsninger av arbeidsoppgavene, samt elevenes metarefleksjoner over arbeids- og læringsprosessene. Elevene utviklet
sin digitale kompetanse i mappene ved å dokumentere ferdigheter, kunnskaper og kreativitet i fagene som norsk, samfunnsfag og matematikk. IKT ble brukt i mange fagområder.
Elevgruppene ved skole A presenterte muntlig sine problemstillinger, hvilke læringsmål de hadde oppnådd og endelig de metakognitive vurderinger av sine læringsprosesser.
De digitale mappene og digitale læringsressursene appellerte til elevene om å yte maksimal innsats i fagene under forsøksperioden. Flere elevgrupper ved skole B arbeidet med
arbeidsoppgaver som opplevdes svært relevant. Om analoge mapper hadde hatt samme
appell, er ikke gjenstand for undersøkelse i denne fremstilling. For lærere og medelever
ble læringsproduktene svært konkrete, og elevene var stolte over sine arbeider. Til en viss
grad ble det også en gjensidig beundring og konkurranse elevene imellom. Den andre
suksessfaktoren for elevenes produktive læringsprosesser gjaldt hvordan de fire læringsprinsippene hos Engle og Conant (2002) ble satt ut i livet. I forsøket hadde nysgjerrige,
sosiale elever med interesse for å utforske digitale læringsressurser en stor fordel. Elever
som ikke var så vant til å orientere seg eller ikke hadde erfart bruk av IKT på skolen og i
fritiden, opplevde ikke i samme grad den raske progresjonen som de IKT-erfarne elevene,
slik Kankaanranta (2002) dokumenterer. Manglende motivasjon, initiativ, selvstendighet
og kompetanse til å styre sin egen læringsprosess kan for noen elever være en for stor
utfordring. Elevenes læreforutsetninger blir et viktig moment for lærerens kompetanse i å
lede hele gruppens læringsarbeider. Ifølge Andresen (2003) åpner IKT for differensiering,
men forsøkene viste også at en viktig forutsetning for at differensiering finner sted er at
218
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 219 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
lærerne har digital og didaktisk kompetanse i å bruke de digitale læringsressursene. I lys
av Barretts (2006) definisjon av digitale mapper opplevde mange elever gleden av å samle,
velge ut, reflektere over og feire arbeidsoppgavene fra prosjektperioden i sine digitale
mapper.
Samlet sett opplevde jeg at et viktig suksesskriterium ved begge skolene var ledelsens
støttende holdning og faglige og moralske engasjement, slik tidligere studier på dette feltet også dokumenterer betydningen av (Vinje 2004; Hauge et al. 2007). Utdanningssystemet har den senere tid fått nye didaktiske og pedagogiske muligheter gjennom Web 2.0.
Når det gjelder de pedagogiske og didaktiske muligheter og spørsmål for dette verktøyet,
har digitale verktøy som kommer inn under Web 2.0 en stor mulighet. Elever og lærere og
skolens øvrige aktører (foreldre, politikere) kan gå inn og snakke, samarbeide, vurdere og
produsere kunnskaper sammen og i sann tid. Men de digitale verktøyene og Web 2.0 kan
skape kontaktpunkter mennesker imellom som kan planlegge negative aktiviteter. Massakrene på de to skolene i Finland var i stor grad planlagt ved hjelp av Internett. Lærerutdanningen bør kvalifisere sine studenter i dette, slik at fremtidens lærere evner å vurdere
kritisk og anvende Web 2.0 didaktisk og pedagogisk i morgendagens skole.
Noter
1 Forsøksarbeidet ble finansiert av Høykom skole. http://bredband.prosjekt.
hive.no
2 Takk til professor Sten R. Ludvigsen og
førsteamanuensis Knut S. Engelsen,
som begge har bidratt til konstruktiv
veiledning.
Referanser
Andresen, B.B. (2003). Læringsscenarier –
hvor it gør en forskel. Albertslund: Forlag
Malling Beck.
Barrett, H. (2006). Authentic Assessment
with Electronic Portfolios using Common Software and Web 2.0 Tools. Hentet
27. mai 2008 fra http://electronicportfolios.org/web20.html
Bratholm, B. (2004). Sluttrapport Høykom.
Hentet 27. mai 2008 fra http://bredband.prosjekt.hive.no
Bratholm, B. (2008). Lærerundersøkelse
ved to utvalgte skoler (i trykk).
Brown, A. (1992). Design Experiments:
Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences 2: 141–178.
Bråten, I. (2005). Selvregulert læring i
sosialt-kognitivt perspektiv. I: Bråten,
red.: Læring i sosialt, kognitivt og sosialtkognitivt perspektiv (s. 164–194). Oslo:
Cappelen.
Dysthe, O. & K.S. Engelsen (2003). Digitale mapper ved to lærerutdanningsinstitusjoner. [Portfolio as pedagogical
tool. Perspectives and experiences].
I: O. Dysthe & K.S. Engelsen, red., Mapper som pedagogisk redskap (s. 205 ff).
Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
219
dk-2008-3.book Page 220 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Engelsen, K.S. (2003). Mapper og IKT. I:
O. Dysthe & K.S. Engelsen, red., Mapper som pedagogisk redskap (s. 114–
129). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Engelsen, K.S. (2006). Gjennom fokustrengsel. Lærerutdanningen i møte med
IKT og nye vurderingsformer. Dr.polit.avhandling, Universitetet i Bergen.
Engelsen, K.S. & G. Winje (2005). Arbeid
med digitale mapper i skolen. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.
Engle, R.A. & F.R. Conant (2002). Guiding
Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners’
Classroom. Cognition and Instruction
20, 4: 399–483.
Erstad, O. (2005). Digital kompetanse i skolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hauge, T.E. (2003). Læringsmapper som
fornyingsredskap i praktisk-pedagogisk
utdanning. I: O. Dysthe & K.S. Engelsen, red., Mapper som pedagogisk redskap. Perspektiver og erfaringer (s. 183–
204). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Hauge, T.E., A. Lund & J.M. Vestøl, red.
(2007). Undervisning i endring. IKT,
aktivitet, design. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
ITU (2005). Begrepet digital kompetanse.
I: Digital skole hver dag [online]. ITU,
Universitetet i Oslo. Hentet 27. mai
2008 fra http://www.itu.no/
digital_kompetanse/index_html
Kalleberg, R. (1992). Om samfunnsvitenskapelig feltforskning. I: M. Hammersley & P. Atkinson, red., Feltmetodikk
(s. 5–19). Oslo: Gyldendal.
Kankaanranta, M. (2002). Developing digital portfolios for childhood education.
220
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä.
Karlsen, A.V. & T.A. Wølner (2006). Den
femte grunnleggende ferdighet. Portefølje
og digitale mapper – et sted for læring.
Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Larsen, A. & S.R. Ludvigsen (2000). Bruk
av IKT i prosjektarbeid – et utgangspunkt for produktive læringsprosesser?.
I: S.R. Ludvigsen & S. Østerud, red., Ny
teknologi – nye praksisformer (s. 139–
170). Oslo: ITU-skriftserie, Universitetet i Oslo.
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In: G. Stahl (ed.),
Computer Support for Collaborative
Learning: Foundations for a CSCL communit. Proceedings of the ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning 2002
Conference. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ludvigsen, S.R. (2000). Læring av og med
teknologi. I: S.R. Ludvigsen & S. Østerud, red.: Ny teknologi – nye praksisformer (s. 107–125). ITU-skriftserie, Universitetet i Oslo.
Ludvigsen, S. (in press). What counts as
knowledge: Learning to use categories
in computer environments. In: R. Säljö,
ed., ICT and Transformation of Learning
Practices. Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
Ludvigsen, S.R., I. Rasmussen & I. Solheim
(2001). Multimedier og prosjektarbeid.
I: S.S. Hovdenakk, red., Perspektiver på
Reform 97 (s. 99–111). Oslo: Gyldendal
Akademisk.
Ludvigsen, S.R. & C. Flo (2002). Innovasjon i lærerutdanningen: Hvordan ska-
dk-2008-3.book Page 221 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
pes endring? I: S.R. Ludvigsen & T.L.
Hoel, red., Et utdanningssystem i endring. IKT og læring. Oslo: Gyldendal
Akademisk.
Ludvigsen, S.R. & I. Rasmussen (2005).
Modeller på reise: en analyse av endringer i lærerutdanningen. Oslo: Intermedia, Universitetet i Oslo.
Otnes, H. (2003). Arkivskuff eller læringsarena? Lærings- og dokumentasjonssjangrer i digitale mapper. I: O. Dysthe
& K.S. Engelsen, red., Mapper som
pedagogisk redskap. Perspektiver og erfaringer (s. 85–110). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Otnes, H. (2004a). IKT og nye læreprosesser. En artikkelsamling basert på erfaringer fra et prosjekt ved Avdeling for lærerutdanning. Tønsberg: Høgskolen i
Vestfold.
Otnes, H. (2004b). Åpne, digitale mapper
som forskningsmateriale. Noen etiske
overveielser. I: H. Sigmundsson & F.
Bostad, red., Læring. Grunnbok i læring,
teknologi og samfunn (s. 272–293). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Utdanningsdirektoratet (2006). Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet (LK-06). Oslo:
Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet
(2004a). Program for digital kompetanse
2004– 2008.
Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet
(2004b). Stortingsmelding nr. 30
(2003–2004), Kultur for læring.
Vinje, I. (2004). Elevrolle, lærerrolle og IKT.
PILOT. Delrapport Vestfold. Universitetet i Oslo.
Wittek, L. (2003). Læringsarbeid og mappevurdering. En casestudie fra to profesjonsstudier ved Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet. Universitetet i Oslo.
Wittek, L. & A. Havnes (2005). Vurderingsformer ved Høgskolen i Oslo. Oslo: Pedagogisk utviklingssenter, Høgskolen i
Oslo.
Woodward, H. & P. Nanlohy (2004). Digital portfolios: fact or fashion?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
29, 2: 227–238.
Øhra, M. (2004). Kunnskapsdeling ved
bruk av digitale mapper. I: H. Otnes,
red.: IKT og nye læreprosesser. En artikkelsamling basert på erfaringer fra et prosjekt ved Avdeling for lærerutdanning.
Tønsberg: Høgskolen i Vestfold. Notat
2/2004.
Øhra, M. (2006). Formativ vurdering.
Vurdering for læring med hjelp av digitale mapper. I: H. Bjørnsrud, L. Monsen
& B. Overland: Utdanning for utvikling
av skolen. Om skoleledelse og lærerens
læring. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
om bruk av digitale mapper på to grunnskoler
221
dk-2008-3.book Page 222 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
essay | 3-2008 | vol. 3 | side 222–231
Mona K. Solvoll
Av Mona K. Solvoll | mona.k.solvoll@bi.no
Pedagogisk bruk av wikipedia
Abstract
Wikipedia is a leading information resource on the Internet. In this paper I explain how Wikipedia
may be adapted to and integrated with teaching. I argue that there are three possible uses and benefits that students may gain from working with Wikipedia. For one, students may learn to address
reliable information sources; secondly, students are able to engage themselves in authentic personal
writing; and thirdly, students may participate in the collaborative and interactive publishing process on Wikipedia.
key words
Wikipedia • Knowledge tool • Personal and collaborative publishing
Innledning
Wikipedia har utviklet seg til å bli ett av de mest brukte verktøy for informasjonsinnsamling, også blant studenter og skoleelever. Wikipedias åpne struktur, som tilsier at hvem
som helst kan redigere en hvilken som helst artikkel, blir imidlertid ofte møtt med skepsis
og mistro av undervisningsinstanser. Mange høyskoler, universiteter og skoler advarer
sterkt mot å bruke Wikipedia som referansekilde på for eksempel hjemmeeksamen (Norgesuniversitetet 2007). Wikipedia har imidlertid vokst til et ustoppelig tog som raser av
sted og som det synes håpløst å kjempe imot. Istedenfor bør man kunne snu Wikipedias
popularitet hos studentene til en fordel for det pedagogiske opplegget. Nedenfor vil jeg
presentere noen argumenter for hvorfor Wikipedia bør brukes mer aktivt i undervisningssammenhenger og hva slags utbytte studenter kan få gjennom en slik strategi. Det er
i hovedsak tre funksjoner Wikipedia kan spille i et pedagogisk øyemed: som informasjonsressurs innenfor et kildekritisk perspektiv, som et sted hvor studenter kan produsere
og publisere kunnskap (personlig publiseringsperspektiv) og som en interaktiv samarbeidsform (samhandlingsperspektiv).
222
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 223 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Wikipedia i et kildekritisk perspektiv
Et sentralt læringsmål for mange studier er at studentene skal oppdras og oppfordres til
kritisk tenkning og refleksjon. Dette er en stor utfordring for studenter, ikke minst i forhold til informasjon som de finner på internett. På Wikipedia er det vanskelig å holde
noen ansvarlig for det som står i artiklene, og forfatterne kan være en blanding av eksperter, interesserte amatører og useriøse «troll». De fleste med et minimum av kjennskap til
Wikipedia vet at svært lite av det faglige innholdet kontrolleres systematisk av noen på
nettstedet. Arbeidet med å kryssjekke for at innholdet i artiklene er mest mulig korrekt, er
derfor overlatt til leserne. Dette er for øvrig en av kjepphestene til miljøet på Wikipedia:
Kildekritikk og kryssjekking av kilder bør ikke bare gjelde på Wikipedia, men også for
andre informasjonsbærere som for eksempel aviser. En tommelfingerregel tilsier at hvis
du tror du kan stole på Aftenposten, kan du også stole på Wikipedia. Forskjellen ligger i at
Aftenposten har en forhåndskontroll og en redaksjonell publiseringsform, mens Wikipedia bedriver etterhåndskontroll basert på samarbeidsformer. Kildekritikkens utfordringer
er alle steder, men den er spesielt synlig på Wikipedia (Finstad 2007). Studenter som er
fortrolig med Wikipedia er klar over dette premisset når de bruker nettstedet, og leser i
stor grad artikler på Wikipedia med en annen innstilling enn når de leser annen kunnskapsinformasjon. At studenter er observante på Wikipedias troverdighet, er en styrke
som bør overføres til andre informasjonskilder, deriblant andre nettsteder, leksikon og til
og med pensumlitteratur. For noen synes det underlig å anbefale et verktøy som kan være
mangelfullt og upresist. For andre er dette hele nøkkelen til å skape et aktivt læringsmiljø
(Carvin 2005). På Wikipedia vil noen artikler ha bedre referanser enn andre. Noen vil ha
en lang liste over kilder og andre nettsider og en detaljert diskusjonsside. Andre sider vil
kanskje bare være en «stubb» uten referanser og uten en aktiv diskusjon. Det vil derfor bli
opp til de lærende selv å bryte ned de ulike tekstene for å prøve å verifisere innholdet.
Sammenlignet med andre informasjonskilder, gjør Wikipedia til en viss grad leserne
oppmerksomme på sine egne svakheter. Mange artikler er merket «kort og mangelfull»
eller «denne artikkelens objektivitet er omstridt» eller «denne artikkelen trenger en opprydning for å oppnå en høyere standard». Slike merkelapper vil kunne hjelpe studentene
til å utvikle sin kritiske sans og kvalitetssikre sin egen innhenting av informasjon.
For et pedagogisk formål er også Wikipedia noe langt mer spennende enn bare en
online kunnskapsressurs. Wikipedia kan representere en type skrivetrening hvor studenter øver seg i å utvikle og gjenskape kunnskap. Læringsutbyttet og motivasjonen kan
dessuten bli større hvis aktiviteten er autentisk (Shaffer og Resnick 1999), det vil si at
læringsaktivitet er personlig meningsfull for den lærende, at den relateres til den «virkelige» verden utenfor skolen, at den gir den lærende en mulighet til å forholde seg til og
tenke i en fagdisiplins modus og at vurderingsordningen reflekterer læringsprosessen
(Shaffer og Resnick 1999: 195). På bakgrunn av dette kan Wikipedia brukes ut fra et personlig publiseringsperspektiv og et samhandlingsperspektiv.
pedagogisk bruk av wikipedia
223
dk-2008-3.book Page 224 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Wikipedia i et personlig publiseringsperspektiv
Wikipedia bygger på prinsippet om at alle kan noe om noe. Forfatteren av boka Blogs,
Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond, Axel Burns, hevder at den miste bidragsmengde er
viktig for at slike kollektive systemer som Wikipedia skal fungere. På Wikipedia er minstebidraget å rette en skrivefeil. Det ligger derfor en sterk oppfordring på nettstedet til at
alle besøkende kan bidra med noe, det være seg språkvask, oversette artikler til og fra
andre språk, sjekke kildebruk, rydde i avsnitt eller skrive på en artikkel.
Mange ønsker en læringsprosess der elevene i større grad produserer sitt eget innhold
istedenfor å reprodusere andres stoff. Seth Godin, mannen bak en av verdens mest populære markedsføringsblogger, hevder at å finne informasjon er blitt mindre viktig sammenlignet med å forstå og syntetisere den (Andersen 2007). Elever og studenter skal i dag
kunne orientere seg i en komplisert virkelighet med stor informasjonsoverflod og som
endrer seg hurtig. Det er derfor ikke bare nødvendig at studentene utvikler sin evne til å
kritisk granske informasjonen. Enda viktigere er det at de er i stand til å presentere det de
henter inn selv. Å bidra på Wikipedia vil kunne øke studenters evne til å sette sammen
informasjon, trekke ut essensen av dette og presentere den skriftlig i form av en leksikalsk
artikkel. Selv innbitte motstandere av Wikipedia trekker fram nettstedets positive funksjon som et sted for skrivetrening (Finstad 2007, Øvrebø og Nærland 2008). Wikipedia
kan i prinsippet brukes i alle fag, ettersom det aldri blir nok artikler på Wikipedia innenfor større eller mindre emner.
At det studentene skriver blir publisert på Wikipedia, vil sannsynligvis kunne virke
som en stor inspirasjonskilde for studentene. Deres bidrag og innsats bli svært synlig og
tilgjengelig for «hele verden». Det å vite at ens eget bidrag kan være interessant og nyttig
for andre og samtidig bidra til å utvikle ett av verdens største nettsteder, innebærer sannsynligvis en type motivasjon som det finnes lite av andre steder.
På EDUCAUSE 2007 presenterte Martha Groom og Andreas Brockhaus fra universitetet Washington Bothell et eksperiment hvor hun hadde pålagt studenter å skrive artikler
på Wikipedia istedenfor obligatoriske innleveringsoppgaver. Hennes utgangspunkt var
begrensningene knyttet til tradisjonelle innleveringsoppgaver (kun én mottaker, tid- og
stedavhengighet, minimal nytteverdi utenfor klasserommet og begrenset læringsutbytte)
og hvordan hun skulle motivere studentene til å reflektere mer dyptgående om kunnskapsproduksjon. Responsen fra studentene hennes var i all hovedsak positiv: de fikk et
bedre perspektiv på bruk av troverdige kilder og referanser, kritikk og debatt av artiklene
økte studentenes engasjement og tidsbruk etter hvert som studentene fikk et eierforhold
til «sine» artikler, og deres arbeider holdt generelt et høyere nivå sammenlignet med
typiske innleveringsoppgaver (Groom og Brockhaus 2007). Gjennom å lære studentene å
publisere sine tekster direkte på Wikipedia ble de delaktige i et betydelig stort og interessant kunnskapsprosjekt.
224
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 225 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Wikipedia i et samhandlingsperspektiv
Et annet prinsipp på Wikipedia er knyttet til en type kollaborativ arbeidsprosess som de
fleste studenter skal lære å forholde seg til på ett eller annet tidspunkt. Wikipedia blir ikke
bare beskrevet som en encyklopedi, men også som et kunnskapssamfunn. Bidragsyterne
er sjelden alene om å produsere artikler på Wikipedia, ettersom andre brukere kan gå inn
på enhver artikkel og foreta endringer enten i innhold eller form. Professor Cathy N.
Davidson har omtalt det som et «knowledge community, uniting anonymous readers all
over the world who edit and correct grammar, style, interpretations, and facts. It is a
community devoted to a common good – the life of the intellect. Isn’t that what we educators want to model for our students?» (Davidson 2007). På lik linje med andre interaktive nettjenester kan Wikipedia fungere som et sosialt verktøy for elever og studenter.
Logikken i sosiale nettverkstjenester er todelt: man går fra informasjon til konversasjon
(«artikkelside» og «diskusjonsside» på Wikipedia) og fra å lese informasjon til å lese og
produsere informasjon («artikkelside» og «redigerside» på Wikipedia). De interaktive
prosessene kan derfor ta plass både i et dokument og i en «tråd» (Konieczny 2007). Disse
prosessene svarer til det Burns (2008) betegner som «produsage». Begrepet omfatter den
kollektive og vedvarende utvidelse av eksisterende innhold med sikte på å forbedre dette.
Tanken bak denne interaksjonen er at kunnskap økes når den deles med andre. Innsikt i et tema og en objektiv holdning til stoffet utvikles gjennom en fri meningsutveksling på en artikkels diskusjonssider. Denne måten å arbeide på stimulerer ikke bare kreativiteten, men bidrar til et gjensidig engasjement for å oppnå konsensus. Wikipedia drives
ikke av demokratiske eller byråkratiske prinsipper. Studentenes egne evner, ytelser og
kompetanse er derimot utslagsgivende for den sosiale kontrollen på Wikipedia. Dette
betyr også at tradisjonelle maktforhold ofte nulles ut og at innholdsprodusentene møtes
på lik linje. Hvem du er, hva du har gjort tidligere og din stilling og tittel betyr lite på
Wikipedia, sammenlignet med hva du skriver og bidrar til på nettstedet.
En generell antagelse er at våre handlinger drives av lidenskap og at vi får et sterkt
eierforhold til våre interesser og aktiviteter. Slik er det også på Wikipedia. Brukerne bryr
seg om «sine» artikler, de kan legge spesielle artikler på en overvåkningsliste og følge med
når det kommer endringer på artikkelen. Denne mekanismen er hovedårsaken til at
Wikipedia i svært liten grad blir utsatt for vandalisme og hærverk. Å overvåke en artikkel
er ikke en type jobb man blir kommandert til å gjøre. Den springer heller ut av at man er
interessert i og føler ansvar for artikkelen. Logikken bak er enkel: man skriver og publiserer en liten tekst som andre forhåpentligvis vil lese og foreta større eller mindre endringer
på. Dette kan utløse en reaksjon hos «primærforfatteren» som foretar ytterligere redigeringer som igjen kan frembringe nye reaksjoner hos andre brukere. Alle kan diskutere
innholdet og formen på artikkelen på dens diskusjonssider, og alle aktiviteter lagres i
artikkelens historikk slik at man når som helst kan tilbakestille en artikkel til en tidligere
versjon. Denne type interaktivitet oppstår i all hovedsak der innholdet er sensitivt, kon-
pedagogisk bruk av wikipedia
225
dk-2008-3.book Page 226 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
troversielt eller flertydig. Fordelene med å arbeide direkte på Wikipedia er mange. Blant
annet oppleves Wikipedia som noe meningsfylt utenfor skoleverdenen, det er allerede
mange deltagere på Wikipedia, det er større mulighet for å bruke flere verktøy (krysslenking til andre tema og kategoriseringer), og bidrag på Wikipedia gjør nettstedet bedre slik
at studentenes innsats tjener et reelt formål. I masteroppgaven «Wikipedia as a learning
community» (Lawler 2005) argumenterer Lawler for at sosial interaksjon basert på tillit,
empati og respekt er avgjørende for å vedlikeholde et online læringsmiljø. Dette er positive tilleggsverdier som man også kan diskutere konkret på tvers av fagene.
Eksempler på praktisk bruk
Som jeg har argumentert ovenfor, kan Wikipedia brukes både som individuell læringsplattform og i en kollektiv samhandling. Min påstand er imidlertid at den beste læring
skjer på en rekke forskjellige skjæringspunkter mellom den individuelle tilnærmingen og
den kollektive samhandlingen med andre. Wikipedia gir rom for begge deler. Hvordan
man tilrettelegger dette i praksis, begrenses kun av vårt engasjement, kreativitet og vilje til
å aktivere Wikipedias strukturer.
For ulike språk kan man selvsagt bruke Wikipedia som et rent oversettelsesverktøy. De
engelsk- og tyskspråklige utgavene av Wikipedia har omfattende artikler innenfor flere
tema som kan kopieres inn i bokmåls- eller nynorskutgaven og deretter oversettes. Den
motsatte veien er også mulig å gå, ettersom mange norske fenomener og tema ikke finnes
på andre språk. Dette vil kunne være spesielt nyttig for mange fremmedspråklige elever
(Andersen og Larsen 2008).
For norskundervisning kan man bruke Wikipedia i sjangerlære eller som et verktøy
for å lage biografier. Wikipedia etterstreber artikler av leksikalsk verdi og format, noe som
bidrar til å sette oppslagsverk på dagsordenen i en pedagogisk sammenheng. Ønsker man
å inkludere problemer knyttet til opphavsopplysninger, lisens for åndsverk og juridiske
rettigheter, er dette også mulig på Wikipedia, spesielt når det gjelder bruk av lyd- og bildefiler.
I tillegg til å oversette artikler fra andre språk og å skrive nye artikler, finnes det flere
interessante muligheter for å innlemme Wikipedia i undervisningen. En øvelse kan ta
utgangspunkt i historikkfunksjonen til artikler på Wikipedia for fag som samfunnsvitenskap, religion og historie. Tilnærmet alt som har stått tidligere på nettstedet og endringene på alle artiklene er lagret og finnes lett tilgjengelig. Det er med andre ord en åpenhet
rundt hva som er blitt gjort og sagt om en artikkel tidligere. På denne måten kan studentene analysere hvordan en kunnskapsartikkel har blitt utviklet, hva som har skjedd med
forståelsen av et tema, en person, et fenomen eller historien bak en konflikt. Studentene
vil ikke bare kunne følge debatter og uenigheter om selve fenomenet, men også prosessen
fram til hvordan man formidler «objektiv» kunnskap om fenomenet. Ved å bruke histo-
226
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 227 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
rikkfunksjonen på Wikipedia vil studentene være i stand til å vise og diskutere en artikkels ulike synsvinkler og vanskeligheter knyttet til det å være objektiv, saklig og nøytral.
I seg selv mener jeg også at Wikipedia kunne vært et interessant utgangspunkt for å
diskutere det demokratiske aspektet ved nettstedet: Wikipedia som folkeopplysning og
som et offentlig gode. I tillegg bør Wikipedia og andre interaktive nettjenester ha en sentral plass i mediefag og kommunikasjonsfag.
Ved å innlemme Wikipedia aktivt i undervisningen, oppfordres studenter og elever til
å jobbe kontinuerlig i og med at alt de gjør er synlig for andre hele tiden. Dette gjelder
ikke minst hvis flere bidrar på samme artikkel, enten på innhold eller form eller på artikkelens diskusjonssider. Dette gir artiklene en dynamikk som kan virke selvforsterkende.
For studentene kan denne formen for læring bidra til å flytte fokuset vekk fra å reprodusere pensum til å reflektere aktivt over egen produksjonspraksis, ettersom fokus på Wikipedia er å vurdere informasjon og syntetisere kunnskap. På nettsidene til Pedagogisk Nettverk (http://www.pedagogisknettverk.org/) finnes flere konkrete tips til hvordan Wikipedia kan integreres i undervisningen. Andreas Lund (2006) studerte hvordan en
skoleklasse brukte et kollektivt forfatterverktøy og trekker fram mange av de samme studenterfaringene som Groom og Brockhaus (2007) Verktøyet ble av studentene beskrevet
som en vinn-vinn-situasjon for alle involverte parter, ettersom det var enkelt å sammenligne og dele informasjon samt fint å kunne gi hjelp og samtidig få hjelp. Lund konkluderte med at spenningsforholdet mellom den individuelle eiendomsretten og den kollektive praksisen til studentene ble aktualisert og konkretisert gjennom et felles publiseringsverktøy (Lund 2006: 284). I en annen studie fant Forte og Bruckman (2006) at i tillegg til
å vurdere hverandres arbeider, var responsen fra et bredere publikum avgjørende for studentenes aktivitet og motivasjon. Dette kan indikere at publiseringsverktøyet bør være
troverdig og realistisk. Man kan enten bruke www.wikipedia.no direkte eller Wikipedias
skole- og universitetsprosjekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_
university_projects). I mai 2008 rapporterte prosjektet om to avsluttede studentbidrag
hvorav den ene gruppen studenter publiserte tre artikler som ble klassifisert som «utmerkede» og åtte som «anbefalte» artikler på Wikipedia i løpet av ett semester (se http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Senor_Presidente for klassens artikkel om en av bøkene til
nobelprisvinneren Miguel Ángel Asturias).
Wikipedia i et akademisk perspektiv
Mye er bra når det gjelder IKT i skolen og bruk av digitale verktøy. Mye er også bra på
Wikipedia. For vitenskapelige artikler innenfor de fleste forskningsfelt er aktivitetsnivået,
kvaliteten og kvantiteten på artiklene imidlertid sørgelig lav. De få bidragene på Wikipedia fra det akademiske miljøet er skremmende med tanke på at Wikipedia har blitt en
sentral og viktig kunnskapsressurs for både studenter og elever. Enkelte brukere på Wiki-
pedagogisk bruk av wikipedia
227
dk-2008-3.book Page 228 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
pedia har satt i gang spesielle prosjekter som matematikkprosjektet og dannet interessegrupper som juswikipedianere, uten at veksten i denne type artikler har eksplodert.
I slutten av 2006 ble initiativet til «Wikipedia-stafetten» tatt hvor forskere skulle utfordre
hverandre til å skrive på Wikipedia. Foreløpig har det kommet inn fem konkrete bidrag.
Vox Publica, initiativtakerne bak «Wikipedia-stafetten», foreslår noen årsaker til at
akademikere ofte er skeptiske og passive til Wikipedia. For det første skal Wikipedia formidle etablert kunnskap og ikke presentere nye forskningsfunn. Dette kriteriet bryter
med universitetsforskning som i hovedsak etterstreber etablering av ny kunnskap og at
undervisning skal være i tråd med forskningens nyeste resultater. Likevel, både ny forskning og studenter trenger etablert forskning for i det hele tatt å ha noe å bygge videre på,
etterprøve, utfordre og kritisere. I så måte er det mildt sagt underlig at svært få akademikere har tatt seg bryet med å utvide eller oversette Wikipedia-artiklene om for eksempel
Michel Foucault, Michael Porter, transaksjonskostnader eller diffusjonsteorier.
En annen forklaring kan, ifølge Vox Publica, være at akademikere foretrekker vitenskapelige tidsskrifter for å få publikasjonspoeng og økonomisk gevinst. En Wikipediaartikkel er knapt rangert nederst på publiseringshierarkiet og gir ingen meritteringer i
akademia. Til en viss grad er man også anonym på Wikipedia, slik at en artikkel her heller
ikke gir noen sosial anerkjennelse som for eksempel en aviskronikk eller en blogg kan
gjøre. Muligens er det også slik at mange akademiske miljøer ikke vurderer publisering på
nettet som like troverdig, anerkjent og høyverdig som informasjon trykket på papir. I så
fall er disse ekstremt i utakt med sine studenter.
Andre, og kanskje mer relevante forklaringer tar utgangspunkt i Wikipedias publiseringsformat. En Wikipedia-artikkel skal være allmenn, objektiv og basere seg på et nøytralt ståsted. Innholdet skal være av leksikalsk verdi og fungere som et oppslagsverk. Da
professor i medievitenskap, Jostein Gripsrud, skrev en artikkel om offentlighet på Wikipedia, ble artikkelen kritisert for å ligne for mye på en stiloppgave om Habermas og hans
teorier (Wikipedia 2006). Uten å henge ut Gripsruds artikkel viser eksemplet at det kan
være svært utfordrende å skrive en encyklopedisk artikkel uten subjektive vurderinger,
essayistiske tanker, holdninger eller diskusjoner. Et like stort problem er muligens knyttet
til Wikipedias egne stilmanualer. Utfordringene med å «wikifisere» artikler kan være
knyttet til både en generell teknologiangst og en irritasjon mot uniformering av artikler.
Dette er et krav som bryter med en akademisk tradisjon for artikkelskriving. Vanlige retningslinjer for akademiske manus begrenser seg gjerne til antall ord, noter og litteraturreferanser, mens på Wikipedia er det forholdsvis mange strikte regler for hvordan oppsettet på ulike artikler skal være. Selv om man kan få hjelp på Wikipedia til å «wikifisere» en
artikkel, er nok disse strukturene i stor grad med på å begrense akademikeres aktivitet på
Wikipedia.
En nærliggende og interessant forklaring er å finne i Wikipedias organisasjonsmodell.
Man vil kunne oppleve at en annen person begynner å redigere, slette eller omformulere
228
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
dk-2008-3.book Page 229 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
deler av «din» artikkel på Wikipedia. Dette er en produksjonspraksis som er relativt
ukjent i det akademiske miljøet. I stor grad er også de andre «medforfatterne» anonyme,
noe som innebærer at måten man kommuniserer på er svært annerledes sammenlignet
med tradisjonell akademisk artikkelsamarbeid. Man kan hevde at samarbeid og relasjoner mellom bidragsytere ansikt til ansikt (sosialintegrasjon) har blitt supplert med systemintegrasjon (Giddens 1984). På Wikipedia etableres nye former for publiseringsprosesser hvor aktørene er fraværende for hverandre i tid og rom. Wikipedia har bidratt til at
denne systemintegrasjonen har fått en langt større betydning enn tidligere som styringsmekanisme for interaksjon. Muligens er det slik at studenter behersker denne typen regulering bedre enn akademikere.
Denne interaksjonen blir også problematisk for mange når de blir klar over at Wikipedia i stor grad er organisert som et meritokrati. Wikipedia er verken et byråkrati eller et
hierarki. Makt og autoritet fordeles etter brukernes meritter, ferdigheter og egnethet.
Hvem du er og hva du har gjort utenfor Wikipedia er i prinsippet uinteressant, det er
dine kunnskaper om, kompetanse på og bidrag til Wikipedia som bestemmer dine muligheter til sosialt avansement på nettstedet. Tilsynelatende er et meritokrati en sympatisk
organisasjonsform da alle brukerne stiller med like muligheter. Hylland Eriksen omtaler
det som en anarkistisk kunnskapsproduksjon ettersom alle brukerne er ansvarlige for
innholdet (2007). Det eneste som avgjør en eventuell forfremmelse er dyktighet på og
kunnskap om Wikipedia.
Konklusjon
I bloggen «IKT og skolen» stiller Arne Olav Nygard, stipendiat i lesevitenskap ved Universitetet i Stavanger, seg kritisk og undrende til at kunnskapsarbeidere (som lærere og bibliotekarer) fremdeles velger å forholde seg til kunnskap og viten som noe som kan godkjennes og sementeres mellom to permer og som er kvalitetssikret i forkant. Han etterlyser et
kunnskapssyn i skolen som kan reflektere plastisiteten i kunnskapsbegrepet som Wikipedia tydelig viser oss. Mens studenter i større grad forholder seg til kunnskap som en
dynamisk og skiftende prosess hvor kvalitetssikringen skjer kontinuerlig i etterkant, virker det som om deres autoriteter betrakter kunnskap som et statisk og stabilt produkt.
Bruk av Wikipedia i undervisningssammenheng har flere fordeler både som en personlig skrivetrening og som en samhandlingsform. Fordelene ved personlig publisering
er at produksjon blir like viktig som konsum, at det understreker verdien av refleksjon og
vurdering og at det oppleves som meningsfylt. Nøkkelelementene ved samhandlingspublisering kan kort oppsummeres ved at studentene bidrar til samfunnet (deltar i en verdensomspennende dugnadsaktivitet), deres bidrag har synlige resultater og utfyller et
behov på Wikipedia og at studentbidragene er knyttet til konkrete læringsmål (kildekritikk, skrivetrening, refleksjon over egen og andres kunnskapsproduksjon). Istedenfor å
pedagogisk bruk av wikipedia
229
dk-2008-3.book Page 230 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
forby eller advare mot bruk av Wikipedia som et læringsverktøy, vil det kunne tjene studenter og elever mer om de ble vist hvordan og når de skulle bruke verktøyet – og hva de
selv kan gjøre for å forbedre det.
Referanser
Andersen, Espen og Ulf Larsen (2008). Det
levende leksikon. [Elektronisk versjon].
Aftenposten, 6.oktober 2008. Lastet ned
24. oktober 2008, fra http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/
article2694828.ece
Andersen, Espen (2007). Wikipedia i skolen. Lastet ned 28. april 2008, fra: http://
www.espen.com/norskblogg/archives/
2007/10/wikipedia_i_sko.html
Burns, Alex (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia,
Second Life and Beyond. New York:
Peter Lang.
Carvin, Andy (2005). Turning Wikipedia
into an Asset for Schools. Lastet ned
29. april 2008, fra http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2005/07/
turning_wikiped.html
Davidson, Cathy N. (2007). We Can’t
Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies. The Chronicle Review 23 March
2007. Lastet ned 28. april 2008, fra
http://www.hastac.org/node/694
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (2007). Aktivistenes demokrati. Ny Tid, 26. januar
2007. Lastet ned 28. april 2008, fra
http://www.nytid.no/?sk=urix&id=
3927
Finstad, Thea (2007, 24. oktober). Kontaktannonse for kunnskapsrike. Universitas
[Elektronisk versjon]. Hentet 28. april
2008, fra http://www.universitas.no/
index.php?sak=49829#49829
230
digital kompetanse | 3-2008
Forte, Andrea og Amy Bruckman (2006).
From Wikipedia to the classroom:
Exploring online publication and learning. Paper presentert på The International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN. Lastet ned
29. april 2008, fra www.cc.gatech.edu/
~aforte/ForteBruckmanFromWikipedia.pdf
Giddens, Anthony (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: The Polity
Press.
Groom, Martha og Andreas, Brockhaus
(2007). Using Wikipedia to Re-Envision
the Term Paper. Paper presentert på
EDUCAUSE 2007. Lastet ned 28. april
2008, fra http://www.educause.edu/
E07/Program/11073?PRODUCT_
CODE=E07/SESS089
Konieczny, Piotr (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning, 4 (1).
Lawler, Cormac (2005). Wikipedia as a
learning community. Masteroppgave,
University of Manchester. Lastet ned
28. april 2008, fra http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Image:Cormac_Lawler_
dissertation-Wikipedia-Learning_
community.pdf
Lund, Andreas (2006). WIKI i klasserommet: Individuelle og kollektive praksiser
[Elektronisk versjon]. Norsk pedagogisk
tidsskrift nr. 4, s. 274–288.
dk-2008-3.book Page 231 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Norgesuniversitetet (2007). Universiteter
mot Wikipedia? Lastet ned 28. april
2008, fra http://norgesuniversitetet.no/
artikler/2007/wikipedia
Nygard, Arne Olav (2007). Ikkje sei
W-ordet. Lastet ned 28. april 2008, fra
http://www.iktogskole.no/?p=202
Pedagogisk Nettverk. (Oppdatert 10.
februar 2008). Lastet ned 28. april 2008,
fra http://www.pedagogisknettverk.org/
wiki/index.php/Hovedside
Shaffer, D.W. og M. Resnick (1999).
«Thick» Authenticity: New Media and
Authentic Learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 10, no. 2,
195–215.
Wikipedia (2006). Offentlighet, diskusjonssiden til artikkelen. Lastet ned
28. april 2008, fra: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskusjon:Offentlighet
Wikipedia Skole- og universitetsprosjekt.
Lastet ned 14. mai 2008, fra: http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe-
dia:School_and_university_projects
Wikipedia-prosjektet Murder, Madness,
and Mayhem (2008): El Senor Presidente, lastet ned 14. mai 2008, fra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_
Se%C3%B1or_Presidente, også tilgjengelig fra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:MMM
Øvrebø, Olav Anders (2006). Wikipediastafetten – forsker utfordrer forsker.
[Elektronisk versjon]. Vox Publica. Lastet ned 28. april 2008, fra: http://voxpublica.no/2006/11/wikipedia-stafetten%E2%80%93-forskere-utfordrer-forskere/
Øvrebø, Olav Andreas og Torgeir Uberg
Nærland (2008). Ta ansvar på Wikipedia. [Elektronisk versjon]. Aftenposten,
24. september 2008. Lastet ned 24.
oktober 2008, frahttp://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/
article2672203.ece
pedagogisk bruk av wikipedia
231
dk-2008-3.book Page 232 Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
CONTRIBUTORS
Marianne Bollström-Huttunen, Elementary-school teacher and teacher’s provincial
pedagogical-support person, Laajasalo Elementary School, Helsinki
Berit Bratholm, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Vestfold University College |
Berit.Bratholm@hive.no
Kai Hakkarainen, Professor, Department of Education, University of Helsinki | kai.
hakkarainen@helsinki.fi
Riikka Hofmann - Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK
Andrew Morrison, Associate Professor, InterMedia, University of Oslo | andrew.
morrison@intermedia.uio.no
Idunn Sem, Media Developer, , InterMedia, University of Oslo | idunn.sem@intermedia.uio.no
232
digital kompetanse | 3-2008