1. VO@NET – ICT for Development Investigating archetypes of use and refining the understanding of PBL- processes - Experiences from the VO@NET project www.voanet.dk Thomas Ryberg E-learning Lab, Department of Communication Aalborg University. E-mail: ryberg@hum.aau.dk E-learning lab: www.ell.aau.dk This work is published under a Creative Commons license: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

2. Outline Short on the VO@NET-project Archetypes of use derived from 30 courses in VO@NET Discussion of PBL – experiences derived from the VO@NET project – the need to work with a more flexible understanding of the Aalborg model

3. VO@NET – a part of a larger constellation U-NEXUS (DUCED) BCopenhagen Business School (CBS) BAalborg University (AAU) BTechnical University of Denmark (DTU) BThe Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts- School of Architecture (RDA) BRoskilde University (RUC) SACUDE-I&UA BUniversity of Botswana (UB) BUniversity of Cape Town (UCT) BUniversity of the Western Cape (UWC) BUniversity of Witwatersrand (WITS) BUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) MUCED-I&UA BUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) BUniversiti Malaya (UM) BUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) BUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) TUCED-I&UA BChiang Mai University (CMU) BChulalonghorn University (CU) BMahidol University (MU) BPrince of Songkla University (PSU) LUCED Linked University Consortia for Environment and Development - Industry and Urban Areas

4. Close VO@NET collaboration partners Malaysia (MUCED) Universiti Malaya (UM) Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia (UKM) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Thailand (TUCED) Chulalongkorn University Mahidol University Prince of Songkla University Chiang Mai University Denmark (Parts of ”the artist formerly known as DUCED”) E-learning lab – Aalborg University Environment and Resources – Tecnical University of Denmark Spain University of Barcelona

5. Scope and aim of the VO@NET-project To strengthen electronic interconnectivity between the consortium universities' existing network, through the establishment of a virtual network. Thereby, enhancing network building, joint course development, communication and information exchange for higher education. This objective was divided 4 sub-objectives or component groups: 1.Establishment of institutional and administrative framework to ensure the sustainability of the virtual network and reinforce the existing network creating (DTU) 2.To establish a conceptual pedagogic framework to identify key educational and cultural approaches for a successful implementation of a virtual network (AAU) 3.To design and implement an open-access Web-based Education and Networking service (WEN) to enhance the interconnectivity of the existing network (DTU) 4.To test the virtual network through development of educational curricula, the design of online courses and running of those courses (MUCED, TUCED, DUCED)

6. What were the outcomes MU, CMU and PSU BEach produced one course CU, MUCED BHave produced a number of courses (MUCED 23), (CU, 14) Different types of courses and outcomes BOn-campus courses, where the courses serve as a supplement to the class-room teaching BOff-Campus courses where there are no physical meetings BSome courses focused more on combining content and activities, whereas others have focused more on content (repositories) – in a pedagogical/organisational perspective there is both a breadth and a depth. BSome have implemented Moodle as an institutional infrastructure, thus focusing not on one course but have made space for several courses to be implemented at the institutions

7. Four basic modes of delivery

8. Archetypes of use (Institutional Infrastructures) – cross-type pedagogical use Pedagogical modes or archetypes: BContent delivery: Main function is organization and publication of teaching material BConferencing and Communication: Main function is dialogues in asynchronous (text) media or through synchronous chats BGroup work and Collaboration: Main aim is coordination of group activities. The purpose of the activities can either be production oriented or just socially motivated

9. Institutional Infrastructures

11. Content delivery

12. Content vs. activity BMore focus on providing content to the students e.g. Flash animations, notes, texts and less on designing pedagogical activities

13. Conferencing and communication

14. Discussion and communication BMore focus on the interaction between students and teachers; focus on creating pedagogical online activities e.g. Discussions or other shared tasks

15. Group work and Collaboration

16. Group work, collaboration and mutual problem solving BFocus on case-work, PBL; group work between students on different tasks or longer lasting case studies or projects

17. The archetypes of use Are not mutually exclusive! They are metaphors of the most dominant use – a course seldom rely only on content, but difference in whether the activities are online or in the class room Can’t be directly connected with values on pedagogical change e.g. Content delivery courses in VO@NET completely changed classroom interactions Activity vs. Content a basic distinction – also expressed in differences between e.g. Learning Objects and LAMS – Learning Activity Management System Which metaphor is the most suitable depends on the context and conditions in which the course is embedded – what is the pedagogical purpose of bringing in a VLE?

18. PBL-POPP - theoretically Some differences – historically – between the Aalborg Model of POPP/PBL and other interpretations: BThe focus is not on the usual PBL approach […] where a problem is defined by the tutor and given to the learner as their starting point for PBL. In this traditional model, students acquire knowledge and skills through staged sequences of problems presented in context, together with associated learning materials and support from teachers […]. The kind of PBL examined in this paper occurs in an open, adult learning context where learners, who are already professional people, work in small distributed e-learning groups and negotiate amongst themselves the focus of the problem (McConnel 2002)

19. PBL/POPP-processes Rounding up the usual suspects: PBL-POPP – The Aalborg Model: B50% Course - 50% project BLong-term (semester) 4 months! BStudents own and define the problem to work with BDecide methods, the- ory, empirial invest. BSolution – ”open ended” BAn institutional pedagogy – not easily applicable in short-term or single courses

20. Some differences between PBL & Aalborg Model POPP/PBL Aalborg Model Problem formulation and problem setting (enquiry) Exemplary and interdisciplinary Participants control Project based Action learning Long time collaboration -1/2 year Other PBL interpretations Problem solving Disciplinary Teacher / curriculum control Individual / project Task driven Ad hoc

21. The problem of problems! It is difficult to apply the Aalborg model directly to a course e.g. In VO@NET there was a 12 weeks fully online training course for professionals on a specific method (Green Productivity), which the students had to learn through case work. Different from Aalborg model in the sense that case and method was chosen – else students could have picked another, similar method or theory – still we would argue that we could call it ”adapted PBL” There is a need for us at AAU (and others) to work with conceptualisations of the model to make it fit other constellations and other needs – e.g. shorter term, more ”curriculum oriented” environments, single course Especially because the Aalborg model is NOT a course model – it is an institutional pedagogy that pervades all levels. Adopting the full-scale Aalborg model is a major organisational change

22. Basic distinctions

23. A conceptualisation of PBL PBL can be conceptualised as three central dimensions or processes that are stretched between teacher and participant control: BProblem – who defines and re-formulate? BWork Process – who chooses theory, methods and ways of working? BSolution – who owns the solution?

24. Conclusions One can imagine different more flexible constructions of PBL: BProblem can be given by teachers, but the work process be decided by participants BProblem can be open but the working processes and methods can be fixed BAllows for variable and more flexible constructions of PBL- processes BThese dimensions might be useful in practical course construction and in the theoretical discussions of what constitutes POPP/PBL

25. Further readings :D VO@NET – Project component 2 report BAvailable from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=304 http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=304 Journal Article: BRyberg, T., Koottatep, S., Pengchai, P., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2006). Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments – a case study from the VOANET project. In: Studies in Continuing Education - Special Issue on “Advances in Adult E-Learning” Issue 2. Ed. David McConnell. (to appear in 2006).