Sebastian, Rob and George are presenting today at Ascilite 2009 in New Zealand our thoughts on the role of social media in educational intervention and transformation. Unfortunately I couldn‘t travel down under, because we are waiting for a great moment to come… ;-)

Here are some infos about the Symposium:

Sebastian Fiedler (Austria), George Siemens (Canada), Rob Fitzgerald (Australia), Jan Philipp Schmidt (South Africa), Leigh Blackall (New Zealand), Barbara Kieslinger (Austria), Cyprien Lomas (Australia), Terje Väljataga (Estonia), Frederik G. Pferdt (USA)

In recent years social media and social software tools and practices have been applied in numerous implementation and pilot studies in higher. Some have been driven by explicit educational goals, while others seem to have been inspired by the attractive, technical flexibility of an emerging decentralized landscape of loosely-coupled, networked tools and services and its alleged potential for changing the dominant patterns of institutional provision of ICT in education. This symposium brings together a diverse and international group of researchers to explore the problems and limitations of using social media as a leverage point for second-order change in higher education. It aims to engage contributors and the audience in theoretical and empirical reflection on possible directions for further conceptual and methodological development in that area.

Ascilite 2009 reflects on the emergence of multiple spaces in our personal and learning environments. Presentations are invited that explore developments and experiences in the following spaces:

BlendedSpace
How do learners move between independent and dependent
spaces for learning? How are physical learning spaces changing to facilitate learning in blended environments? What makes blended learning effective – why, how, when and where?

Virtual Space
What is happening around education in virtual worlds? What is the impact, what are the implications and how can the potential of developments in this emergent area be realistically assessed?

SocialSpace
What Web2.0 technologies are teachers and students using? How well do they work, how do you know and what can be done to improve and enhance their use. What is the nature of the social space in educational settings?

MobileSpace
How are mobile devices being incorporated into the learning environment and what does their unique functionality have to offer? What do the students think? How do they learn with these ubiquitous tools?

WorkSpace
What are industries, trades, businesses and professionals doing with e-learning technologies for further education and training. What works and why? Where does their future lie in the world of e-learning?

Here is our full proposal text:

In recent years social media and social software tools and practices have been applied in numerous implementation and pilot studies in higher education (for example Yew, Gibson, & Teasley, 2006; Rogers, Liddle, Chan, Doxey, & Isom, 2007; Sharma & Fiedler, 2007; Fitzgerald, Barass, Campbell, Hinton, Ryan, Whitelaw, et al., 2009; Fiedler, Kieslinger, Pata, & Ehms, 2009). Some of these studies have been driven by explicit educational goals (such as fostering community involvement in learning and teaching; peer learning; competence advancement in collaborating, social-networking, and self-directing; social and collaborative production, and so forth). On the other hand numerous implementations seem to have been mostly inspired by the attractive, technical flexibility of an emerging decentralized landscape of loosely-coupled, networked tools and services and its alleged potential for changing the dominant patterns of institutional provision of ICT in education. Some have noted that these implementations produce more questions than answers (Guess, 2007). It is becoming clear that greater depth of examination is required to clarify what type of educational change goals and what type of systemic interventions (Midgley, 2000; Hawe, Shiell & Riley, 2007) can actually be supported effectively by bringing social media practices into higher education.

Furthermore, exploration is needed of the tensions, barriers and unintended consequences that are likely to result from educational interventions that try to use such practices as a significant “leverage point for change” in higher education. However, as Postman (1992) has noted, the change promised by new technologies often represents a Faustian bargain.
Increased understanding of the unintended consequences of change is imperative if intervention focuses not only on first-order change by making mere “incremental improvements within existing modes of practice” (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007), but strives for second-order (or radical) change (Bereiter, 2002) involving a fundamental shift in how things are done within the targeted context. Change agents need to understand if and how a strategic change made in one part of the system influences (or fails to influence) other parts of the system. What actors are (or ought to be) included in an intervention is another important issue here. Foster-Fishman, Nowell, & Yang (2007) remind us that “… if the boundaries are drawn too wide, then the systems change effort can become cumbersome and unmanageable; if drawn too narrow then vital system pieces may be ignored” (p. 204). The way a system is bounded places limits on our understanding and our ability to leverage change (Midgley 2000). This is where many technology driven interventions in education seem to fail. While re-mediation efforts based on the introduction of new technological tools often trigger temporary changes in practice, “this emphasis on instrumental re-mediation often entailed a relative neglect of corresponding transformations in the division of labor, community and rules – that is, the social-organizational re-mediation of the activity system” (Engeström 2001, p. 91).

Since social media practices tend to fundamentally alter the traditional configurations of responsibility and control of instructional functions that characterize settings in formal higher education, these changes always effect other parts of the overall system such as norms (beliefs, values, attitudes, orientations), resources and regulations (policies, procedures, routines). A common example of these phenomena is the misfit of the production modes mediated by social software (co-production, multi-authorship, etc.) and their typical products (networked artefacts) with the assessment norms and procedures of the overall institutional system.

Our symposium brings together a diverse and international group of experienced researchers to explore the problems and limitations of using social media practices as a leverage point for second-order change in higher education. Furthermore, it intends to engage symposium contributors and audience in theoretical and empirical reflection on possible directions for further conceptual and methodological development in that area.

An inspired solution is easy to spot; the process that produced it is not. DesignEd investigates innovation in education to find out what it takes to get from ill-defined problem to well-designed solution.

“All occupations engaged in converting actual to preferred situations are concerned with design” – Donald A. Schoen (1983, 77)

As EdLabbers, we believe that teamwork and innovative practices can create something new or improve something that already exists. Keeping in mind the diversity of talents in the EdLab, we invite you to participate in the DesignEd Boot Camp: a start-to-finish design challenge engaging individual talents and collaborative process.

You will work with special guests to address real-life situations (hint: if the Boot Camp is geared towards education, who are our users?). You will cultivate essential design-thinking skills as you assess user needs, set realistic goals, plan actionable strategies, build prototypes, evaluate your results and reflect on your actions. The process will include hands-on experience in interview techniques, brainstorming, prototyping, documentation, communication and presentation.

Our hope is to equip you with a “designer’s mindset” with which to view a wide spectrum of challenges beyond education and design solutions. So let’s put our thinking caps on and get ready to address the world’s problems!

@ EdLab : http://edlab.tc.columbia.edu/

Thanks Harshita for the pictures!

Die Morgenstunden der letzten Woche standen jeweils ganz im Zeichen von “Innovationsentwicklung live”. Der 24 Stunden Design Thinking Challenge des Design All Star Teams hier an der d.school in Stanford mit Studierenden am HPI in Potsdam war als Innovationslabor gedacht, in dem innerhalb 24 Stunden neue Ideen und Lösungen für Produkte und Dienstleistungen im IT Bereich gemeinsam, in den global verteilten Teams, entwickelt werden sollten.

„IT menschlicher machen“ – mit diesem Anspruch sind die beiden Institute aus Potsdam  und dem Silicon Valley auf der CeBIT an den Start gegangen und es wurden mit der Innovationsmethode “Design Thinking”, an jedem Messetag zu den Themen Webciety, IT Security, Green IT, E-Learning, E-Government und E-Health, Lösungsansätze entwickelt. Die CeBIT-Gäste vor Ort konnten live mitmachen und kommentieren (https://www.d-school-blog.hpi-web.de ) und täglich per Video und live lernen, wie es zu den neuen Ideen gekommen ist.

Wir hier in Stanford starteten den Tag, indem wir erste Hinweise zu dem Problem in Form von Rollenspielen mit potenziellen Nutzern, die Design Schritte, die das Team absolviert hat und erste Prototypen (via Skype Video) von dem Team auf der CeBIT geliefert bekamen.

Wir hatten dann einige Stunden Zeit, die Schritte des Design Thinking Prozesses zu durchlaufen wie z. B. das Problem zu explorieren, die Erkenntnisse von Nutzern hier zu testen, zu iterieren, Recherchen durchzuführen, Brainstorming, Prototypen zu entwickeln und die Erfahrungen mit diesen Prototypen zu testen und in einem Kurzvideo zu dokumentieren, um danach unsere Ergebnisse wieder nach Deutschland zu übergeben.

Die Teams des HPI präsentierten am nächsten Morgen in Deutschland an ihrem  Stand ,unter dem Motto “Innovationsentwicklung live”, die Gesamtergebnisse dem Publikum auf der Messe und den Prozess wie es zu diesen Ergebnissen gekommen ist.

Dienstag, 3. März 2009:
Webciety – Ausgewogenheit von Berufs- und Privatleben
Wie könnten wir den Stress von Berufstätigen im “always on”-Zeitalter verringern?

Work Life Balance
How might we reduce (social) areas of stress of professionals working in an “always on” society?

Mittwoch, 4. März 2009:
IT Security - Schutz der Privatsphäre
Wie könnten wir Beschäftigten am Arbeitsplatz helfen, ihre privaten Daten zu schützen?

IT Security – Privacy Protection
How might we help employees to protect their privacy in a corporate environment?

Donnerstag, 5. März 2009
Green ICT – Zu Hause Energie sparen
Wie könnten wir Privathaushalte dazu bringen, grüne IT-Lösungen einzusetzen?

Green ICT
Green home appliances
How might we enable people to make use of GreenIT-solutions in their households?

Freitag, 6. März 2009
E-Learning - Digitale Kommunikation im Klassenzimmer
Wie könnten wir für Schüler erreichen, dass ihre Handys und anderen Mobilgeräte in den Unterricht
integriert werden?

E-Learning – Mobile Classroom
How might we integrate private mobile devices in class?

Den Design-Thinking Prozess der Aufgaben von Dienstag bis Freitag und die Lösungsansätze des Design-All-Star Teams werden in diesen Videos gezeigt:

Check them out!

Day 1: Webciety

Day 2: IT Security

Day 3: Green ICT

Day 4: E-Learning

Das intensive und vor allem spaßbringende Erlebnis wie z.B. im Team in begrenzter Zeit ein Problem zu explorieren, Nutzer zu interviewen, Ideen zu generieren, Prototypen zu entwickeln und zu testen, waren einerseits eine lernreiche Erfahrung und haben mir andererseits gezeigt, dass wir insbesondere versuchen müssen, zukünftig Ideen zu entwickeln, die an der Schnittstelle zwischen den global verteilten Teams ansetzen, um einen effektiven Austausch herzustellen, der auch den stattgefundenen Entwicklungsprozess  mit abbildet.

Ganz getreu dem Motto: Don´t wait – innovate!

Design thinking:

Sehr anschaulich und mit einigem Unterhaltungswert stellt diese 3-teilige Reportage vor, was Design Thinking in der “Praxis” heißt. Entwickelt und in seinem Unternehmen IDEO erfolgreich eingesetzt, erklärt David Kelley was die Philosophie seines Ansatzes ist. Sit back and enjoy:

Übertragen auf Bildungsinstitutionen und innovatives Lehren und Lernen, stellt IDEO einige Ideen vor, über die es sich lohnt nachzudenken…

(bitte klicken um das Dokument zu öffnen)

Vor allem finde ich, dass der Ansatz des frühen und kreativen Prototypings enormes Potenzial besitzt, wenn man beispielsweise neue Unterrichtskonzepte entwickeln möchte, oder sogar etwas weiter gedacht: Schule und Universitäten zu “re-designen”. Vielleicht ein zukunftsfähiges Konzept für die Lehre an Universitäten wäre, die Studierenden mit praktischen Problemstellungen aus Schulen oder Unternehmen zu konfrontieren und ihnen die Umgebung bereitzustellen, in der sie gemeinsam mit dem Praxispartner kreativ und kooperativ Konzepte und Prototypen entwickeln können. In Ansätzen hat das LearnLab Mediendidaktik gezeigt, dass diese Idee durchaus Studierende motiviert.

David Kelley, CEO und Gründer von IDEO, ist Mitglied der d.school und ehemaliger Student meines Betreuers Larry Leifer. Er stellt nächste Woche seine Ideen in unserem wöchentlichen DesignX group meeting vor. Ich bin gespannt…