My colleagues, Mette Allermand, Anna Brodersen, Carsten Lund Rasmussen, and I have an extended summary accepted for the SFI VET Congress 2017. The congress takes place at the Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (SFIVET) in Bern/Zollikofen, Switzerland from March 14-16 2017. The theme of the congress is Unleashing the creative potential of VET, and Danish Professor, Lene Tanggaard Pedersen is one of the keynote speakers.
Our extended summary is entitled Technology-mediated Boundary Objects and Boundary Crossing in Vocational Education and Training – an instructional design model, and the abstract reads as follows:
In this extended summary, we propose an instructional design model aimed at using technology-mediated boundary objects and boundary crossing processes in vocational education and training. The model is based on preliminary findings from a current research project (2015-2017) on vocational teachers’ perceptions of transfer and boundary crossing and their use of information and communication technology (ICT) in relation to such processes. Theoretically the model is inspired by Akkerman & Bakker’s (2011) proposal of four dialogical learning processes, which are attributed boundary crossing potential. Empirically the model has been field validated among Danish vocational teachers attending continuing professional development courses at The Metropolitan University College in Denmark. While the instructional design model has been positively received among the vocational teachers, we still consider it to be a work-in-progress, and further research on how to scaffold the use of the model is needed.
As seen in this abstract, we aim to present an instructional design model we have developed based on findings in the first phase of our research project on ICT, transfer and boundary crossing in vocational education and training that we are currently conducting at the Metropolitan University College. Based predominantly on boundary crossing theory, but also with theoretical inspiration from Henningsen & Mogensen (2013) in relation to mediating tools, we have developed an instructional design model. Figure 1 below shows the model in its initial conception:
Figure 1. The TBOC-model version 1.0.
In figure 2 the TBOC-model is shown with examples of technologies that can be used in relation to different boundary crossing processes.
Figure 2. TBOC-model with examples.
It’s important to notices that our work with the model is still very much in progress. Carsten and I have used the model in pedagogical exercises with in-service vocational teachers this fall, and we are still in the process of analyzing data from those design experiments. Furthermore, we are revisiting data from previous interviews and observations in an effort to further validate the model. In the spring of 2017, we plan to collect more data at vocational schools, and we’ll continue our work with the model – also based on new theoretical insights (e.g. this study by Marheineke).
Akkerman, S.F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. In Review of Educational Research. June 2011, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 132-169
Henningsen, S.E. & Mogensen, F. (red.) (2013). Mellem teori og praksis. Om transfer i professionsuddannelser. [Between theory and praxis. On transfer in Bachelor’s Degree and Academy Profession Degree programmes. ] VIA Systime.
At the Gordon Research conference on Visualization in Science and Education, I was invited to talk about some of the findings from my research in SL.
For unknown reasons slideshare changes the colours and parts of the format, so here’s a pdf-version MariisTalk-GRCviz11. Judging from the feedback, my talk went very well, and I got some highly useful questions, comments, and suggestions. Since the deadline for my dissertation is in September, I’ll not be able to incorporate new ideas, but I did get a lot of inspiration for future research in SL. Even though this blog so far has focused primarily on SL, I do teach other subjects, and based on the other talks from the conference, I also got lots of inspiration for new directions in other areas both in terms of theory, methods, and tools. Below I’ve listed some selected resources – all focusing on bringing forward different types of visualizations in education.
The Mars Expedition Strategy Challenge is a research project on “Immersive Reality Challenge to Explore Strategies for Human Spaceflight Beyond Low-Earth Orbit”. The Mars Expedition Strategy Challenge learning simulation is private. However, FVWC reviewers may contact SL residents Apollo Segall, Spinoza Quinnell or Lyr Lobo to request a guided tour during the evenings.
Further, Johnson’s website offers lots of resources, incl. tutorials and plugins for creation of complex visualizations in ePMV.
GigaPan is a site where users can upload, share, and explore gigapixel panoramas – best way to describe it is: Wauw! With the possibility to annotate, we were shown some very interesting potential educational uses. Further, the GigaPan Time Machine is even more impressive.
The Best Illusions of the Year website offers a lot of intriguing videos of different kinds of illusions. In a similar vein, the video below on attention caused many laughs and lots of puzzlement – how attentive are you, really?
Kongregate was mentioned as an excellent site to find free online games and connect with a community.
“How NOT to lie with visualization” (Rogowitz & Treinish,1996) is an article recommended by several of the conference participants, and so is another article by the same authors “Data visualization: the end of the rainbow” (Rogowitz & Treinish, 1998).
Continuing the challenges in visualization, “How to lie with maps” was also recommended. In this book, the author, Mark Monmonier, explains the methods cartographers must use to distort reality in representing a complex, three-dimensional world on a flat sheet or screen, and how they exclude information and geographic features in order to create a readable and understandable map.
Cynthia A. Brewer’s website Color Brewer 2.0 also offers advice.
The Explaining Climate Change website offers a set of peer-reviewed, interactive, web-based materials to help learners visualize and understand the underlying science of climate change.
NARC’s Color Tool is designed to provide the designer with views of the perceptual relationships among the possible color choices. It improves on previous tools by more clearly representing the constraints imposed by the physical display and the structure of human color vision.
The National Academy Press has published an interesting review of available research on learning science through interaction with digital simulations and games. The book considers the potential of digital games and simulations to contribute to learning science in schools, in informal out-of-school settings, and everyday life, and the book also identifies the areas in which more research and research-based development is needed to fully capitalize on this potential. Get a free copy here.
The final resource, I want to point too is actually not directly linked to the conference, but still deals very much with visualization. Whenever I travel internationally, I have a habit of buying a hard copy of Wired magazine, and the August 2011 edition features an article on Khan Academy.
The article gives a very good overview of the Kahn Academy, it’s history, activities, supporters, and opponents. Even though the “skill and drill” approach to teaching and learning is far from my own approach, I do think it can be useful for certain topics and in certain contexts, but in terms of reforming education, I’d hope for a broader strategy incl. more social constructivist methods.
From a personal point of view, the best part of the conference was to get the opportunity to spend extended time with two of my favorite SL friends, Chimera and Spiral. I’ve had the great fortune of meeting Chimera several times f2f, but it was the first (and hopefully not last) time I met Spiral RL :-)
… and yes the format of this post is horrific, but Code is King … and sticks to autocracy :-(
One of my Danish SL friends, Charlotta Jenkins, just directed my attention to the Montage tool, which enables you to curate self-chosen topics, so here’s one on Visualization in Science and Education 2011.
Many of the presentations at the Visualization in Science and Education conference that I’m currently attending have evolved around games, simulations, and virtual worlds, and in one of today’s talks the presenter showed us this picture:
Picture from “Motivate Us Not”
In this particular talk, the “problem” with reality was linked to the complexity of the world’s many challenges, e.g. in terms of risks we’re facing – which evidently can be quite overwhelming and most likely will cause some people to withdraw from the “real” world, and ultimately leave it to others to try and meet these challenges. However, the picture also pointed to a theme that has been recurring throughout the conference, namely why we need virtual games, worlds etc. in the first place – why not stick to (the reality of) this world? If the skeptics at this conference leave with the impression that those of us in favor of such immersive/augmented technologies want to replace Reality, then I think we have failed (and note that was not the view of the presenter).
Both I, and the colleagues I know who use these technologies in education are not trying to replace, but rather to supplement and work with mixed realities in a re-situated perspective, drawing on the best affordances from each. In another talk, the presenter distinguished between the “game” understood as software, and the “Game” understood as the social context; the community, the practice, the artifacts, and the interactions surrounding the game. I found this to be an important distinction, which could be applied to my own work, and while as an educator I also have an inherent interest in the nature and development of the software (from an instructional POV), I do believe that the context is crucial – and probably could make the difference as to whether people would use these new types of technologies to escape or improve our reality … regardless of how we choose to define it. I’m not done thinking about this, but this morning’s talks provided really good food for thought, and proved that Reality isn’t such a bad Game after all ;-)