Autorenwerkzeuge für digitale, multimediale und interaktive Lernbausteine im Web 2.0

Die vorliegende Forschungsarbeit siedelt sich im Dreieck der Erziehungswissenschaften, der Informatik und der Schulpraxis an und besitzt somit einen starken interdisziplinären Charakter. Aus Sicht der Erziehungswissenschaften handelt es sich um ein Forschungsprojekt aus den Bereichen E-Learning und Multimedia Learning und der Fragestellung nach geeigneten Informatiksystemen für die Herstellung und den Austausch von digitalen, multimedialen und interaktiven Lernbausteinen. Dazu wurden zunächst methodisch-didaktische Vorteile digitaler Lerninhalte gegenüber klassischen Medien wie Buch und Papier zusammengetragen und mögliche Potentiale im Zusammenhang mit neuen Web 2.0-Technologien aufgezeigt. Darauf aufbauend wurde für existierende Autorenwerkzeuge zur Herstellung digitaler Lernbausteine und bestehende Austauschplattformen analysiert, inwieweit diese bereits Web 2.0-Technologien unterstützen und nutzen. Aus Sicht der Informatik ergab sich aus der Analyse bestehender Systeme ein Anforderungsprofil für ein neues Autorenwerkzeug und eine neue Austauschplattform für digitale Lernbausteine. Das neue System wurde nach dem Ansatz des Design Science Research in einem iterativen Entwicklungsprozess in Form der Webapplikation LearningApps.org realisiert und stetig mit Lehrpersonen aus der Schulpraxis evaluiert. Bei der Entwicklung kamen aktuelle Web-Technologien zur Anwendung. Das Ergebnis der Forschungsarbeit ist ein produktives Informatiksystem, welches bereits von tausenden Nutzern in verschiedenen Ländern sowohl in Schulen als auch in der Wirtschaft eingesetzt wird. In einer empirischen Studie konnte das mit der Systementwicklung angestrebte Ziel, die Herstellung und den Austausch von digitalen Lernbausteinen zu vereinfachen, bestätigt werden. Aus Sicht der Schulpraxis liefert LearningApps.org einen Beitrag zur Methodenvielfalt und zur Nutzung von ICT im Unterricht. Die Ausrichtung des Werkzeugs auf mobile Endgeräte und 1:1-Computing entspricht dem allgemeinen Trend im Bildungswesen. Durch die Verknüpfung des Werkzeugs mit aktuellen Software-Entwicklungen zur Herstellung von digitalen Schulbüchern werden auch Lehrmittelverlage als Zielgruppe angesprochen.

What is Practice Research in Social Work - Definitions, Barriers and Possibilities

Practice is subject to increasing pressure to demonstrate its ability to achieve outcomes required by public policy makers. As part of this process social work practice has to engage with issues around advancing knowledge-based learning processes in a close collaboration with education and research based perspectives. This has given rise to approaches seeking to combine research methodology, field research and practical experience. Practice research is connected to both “the science of the concrete” – a field of research oriented towards subjects more than objects and “mode 2 knowledge production” – an application-oriented research where frameworks and findings are discussed by a number of partners. Practice research is defined into two approaches: practice research – collaboration between practice and research – and practitioner research – processes controlled and accomplished by practitioners. The basic stakeholders in practice research are social workers, service users, administrators, management, organisations, politicians and researchers. Accordingly, practice research is necessarily collaborative, involving a meeting point for different views, interests and needs, where complexity and dilemmas are inherent. Instead of attempting to balance or reconcile these differences, it is important to respect the differences if collaboration is to be established. The strength of both practice and research in practice research is to address these difficult challenges. The danger for both fields is to avoid and reject them.

Community Research as a Factor Building Inclusive Community in Lithuania

Social and political change in Europe, increasing labour mobility, development of the new European social policy and increasingly global nature of the social problems had a profound effect on the socio-cultural and socio-educational work in community and on its objectives. In order to keep these new communitarian standards of social policy, the first steps have to be made in fostering local community with the perspective it will reach the western European communitarian level. That is the reason why university in these changes started to turn more and more to the society and first of all has put a great emphasis on the community research. This initiative was induced by non-existence of civic tradition during the communist period, the gap in the development of civil society and its culture, the weakness and the poorness of the third sector. This paper is based on the analysis of the community and civil society research conducted during recent years by the researchers of Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences. The paper involves a review of the research methodology, interpretation of the received data and summary of the results. It discusses both theoretical and empirical possibilities of building and developing inclusive community.

Semiotic Analysis in the Study of Social Work

Research and professional practices have the joint aim of re-structuring the preconceived notions of reality. They both want to gain the understanding about social reality. Social workers use their professional competence in order to grasp the reality of their clients, while researchers’ pursuit is to open the secrecies of the research material. Development and research are now so intertwined and inherent in almost all professional practices that making distinctions between practising, developing and researching has become difficult and in many aspects irrelevant. Moving towards research-based practices is possible and it is easily applied within the framework of the qualitative research approach (Dominelli 2005, 235; Humphries 2005, 280). Social work can be understood as acts and speech acts crisscrossing between social workers and clients. When trying to catch the verbal and non-verbal hints of each others’ behaviour, the actors have to do a lot of interpretations in a more or less uncertain mental landscape. Our point of departure is the idea that the study of social work practices requires tools which effectively reveal the internal complexity of social work (see, for example, Adams & Dominelli & Payne 2005, 294 – 295). The boom of qualitative research methodologies in recent decades is associated with much profound the rupture in humanities, which is called the linguistic turn (Rorty 1967). The idea that language is not transparently mediating our perceptions and thoughts about reality, but on the contrary it constitutes it was new and even confusing to many social scientists. Nowadays we have got used to read research reports which have applied different branches of discursive analyses or narratologic or semiotic approaches. Although differences are sophisticated between those orientations they share the idea of the predominance of language. Despite the lively research work of today’s social work and the research-minded atmosphere of social work practice, semiotics has rarely applied in social work research. However, social work as a communicative practice concerns symbols, metaphors and all kinds of the representative structures of language. Those items are at the core of semiotics, the science of signs, and the science which examines people using signs in their mutual interaction and their endeavours to make the sense of the world they live in, their semiosis. When thinking of the practice of social work and doing the research of it, a number of interpretational levels ought to be passed before reaching the research phase in social work. First of all, social workers have to interpret their clients’ situations, which will be recorded in the files. In some very rare cases those past situations will be reflected in discussions or perhaps interviews or put under the scrutiny of some researcher in the future. Each and every new observation adds its own flavour to the mixture of meanings. Social workers have combined their observations with previous experience and professional knowledge, furthermore, the situation on hand also influences the reactions. In addition, the interpretations made by social workers over the course of their daily working routines are never limited to being part of the personal process of the social worker, but are also always inherently cultural. The work aiming at social change is defined by the presence of an initial situation, a specific goal, and the means and ways of achieving it, which are – or which should be – agreed upon by the social worker and the client in situation which is unique and at the same time socially-driven. Because of the inherent plot-based nature of social work, the practices related to it can be analysed as stories (see Dominelli 2005, 234), given, of course, that they are signifying and told by someone. The research of the practices is concentrating on impressions, perceptions, judgements, accounts, documents etc. All these multifarious elements can be scrutinized as textual corpora, but not whatever textual material. In semiotic analysis, the material studied is characterised as verbal or textual and loaded with meanings. We present a contribution of research methodology, semiotic analysis, which has to our mind at least implicitly references to the social work practices. Our examples of semiotic interpretation have been picked up from our dissertations (Laine 2005; Saurama 2002). The data are official documents from the archives of a child welfare agency and transcriptions of the interviews of shelter employees. These data can be defined as stories told by the social workers of what they have seen and felt. The official documents present only fragmentations and they are often written in passive form. (Saurama 2002, 70.) The interviews carried out in the shelters can be described as stories where the narrators are more familiar and known. The material is characterised by the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee. The levels of the story and the telling of the story become apparent when interviews or documents are examined with the use of semiotic tools. The roots of semiotic interpretation can be found in three different branches; the American pragmatism, Saussurean linguistics in Paris and the so called formalism in Moscow and Tartu; however in this paper we are engaged with the so called Parisian School of semiology which prominent figure was A. J. Greimas. The Finnish sociologists Pekka Sulkunen and Jukka Törrönen (1997a; 1997b) have further developed the ideas of Greimas in their studies on socio-semiotics, and we lean on their ideas. In semiotics social reality is conceived as a relationship between subjects, observations, and interpretations and it is seen mediated by natural language which is the most common sign system among human beings (Mounin 1985; de Saussure 2006; Sebeok 1986). Signification is an act of associating an abstract context (signified) to some physical instrument (signifier). These two elements together form the basic concept, the “sign”, which never constitutes any kind of meaning alone. The meaning will be comprised in a distinction process where signs are being related to other signs. In this chain of signs, the meaning becomes diverged from reality. (Greimas 1980, 28; Potter 1996, 70; de Saussure 2006, 46-48.) One interpretative tool is to think of speech as a surface under which deep structures – i.e. values and norms – exist (Greimas & Courtes 1982; Greimas 1987). To our mind semiotics is very much about playing with two different levels of text: the syntagmatic surface which is more or less faithful to the grammar, and the paradigmatic, semantic structure of values and norms hidden in the deeper meanings of interpretations. Semiotic analysis deals precisely with the level of meaning which exists under the surface, but the only way to reach those meanings is through the textual level, the written or spoken text. That is why the tools are needed. In our studies, we have used the semiotic square and the actant analysis. The former is based on the distinctions and the categorisations of meanings, and the latter on opening the plotting of narratives in order to reach the value structures.

Action Research and Learning Analytics in Higher Education

Teaching is a dynamic activity. It can be very effective, if its impact is constantly monitored and adjusted to the demands of changing social contexts and needs of learners. This implies that teachers need to be aware about teaching and learning processes. Moreover, they should constantly question their didactical methods and the learning resources, which they provide to their students. They should reflect if their actions are suitable, and they should regulate their teaching, e.g., by updating learning materials based on new knowledge about learners, or by motivating learners to engage in further learning activities. In the last years, a rising interest in ‘learning analytics’ is observable. This interest is motivated by the availability of massive amounts of educational data. Also, the continuously increasing processing power, and a strong motivation for discovering new information from these pools of educational data, is pushing further developments within the learning analytics research field. Learning analytics could be a method for reflective teaching practice that enables and guides teachers to investigate and evaluate their work in future learning scenarios. However, this potentially positive impact has not yet been sufficiently verified by learning analytics research. Another method that pursues these goals is ‘action research’. Learning analytics promises to initiate action research processes because it facilitates awareness, reflection and regulation of teaching activities analogous to action research. Therefore, this thesis joins both concepts, in order to improve the design of learning analytics tools. Central research question of this thesis are: What are the dimensions of learning analytics in relation to action research, which need to be considered when designing a learning analytics tool? How does a learning analytics dashboard impact the teachers of technology-enhanced university lectures regarding ‘awareness’, ‘reflection’ and ‘action’? Does it initiate action research? Which are central requirements for a learning analytics tool, which pursues such effects? This project followed design-based research principles, in order to answer these research questions. The main contributions are: a theoretical reference model that connects action research and learning analytics, the conceptualization and implementation of a learning analytics tool, a requirements catalogue for useful and usable learning analytics design based on evaluations, a tested procedure for impact analysis, and guidelines for the introduction of learning analytics into higher education.