Intercultural
1 like451 views
The document discusses designing learning environments using social software. It defines social software as web applications that support content, identity, and relationship management through user participation and interaction. The document then presents two perspectives on learning with social software: 1) how social software influences learners based on survey data showing near-ubiquitous usage among youth, and 2) how social software offers potential for designing new learning environments. It analyzes traditional research paradigms and proposes a new approach that generates both practical solutions and new theory by simultaneously developing a learning environment and conducting research.
Intercultural
- 1. DESIGNING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS WITH SOCIAL SOFTWARE FOR THE NE(X)T GENERATION – NEW PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE RESEARCH DESIGN FREDERIK G. PFERDT, Research Assistant, Department of Business and Human Resource Education, University of Paderborn, Germany, fpferdt@notes.uni-paderborn.de Abstract In the current discussion about learning with technology, one focus is on new technologies such as Web 2.0 and social software. It is said that these technologies have the potential to offer new solutions for learning and teaching. Research in this field often produces impressive empirical data, but at the same time fails to offer solutions for practical problems and transferable designs for learning. So the question of how research can be conducted to generate practical solutions, as well as to develop new theories, remains. The aim of the paper is to introduce empirical studies about the influence of social software on individuals, and the potential for learning social software based on the current discussion in the research literature. Furthermore, the paper will highlight the main ideas of the educational design of learning with social software, based on the experience of a three-year research project. In addition, two different traditional research paradigms will be analyzed in order to address the following question: how can research on these learning environments be conducted? Finally, the new and unique research approach used by the researchers in this project to study and to design new learning environments with social software will be characterized and applied to the research project, offering a new way to generate theoretical and practical solutions. 1 Introduction The information and knowledge society is ubiquitous and requires new ways of dealing with information, communication, and co-operation. A fundamentally different use of new technology is characterized by the keywords “Web 2.0” and “Social Software”. The transfer of content is no longer the main objective. Co-operative development and the exchange and presentation of knowledge play an increasingly important role. This social software has influenced nearly every area of business or private life. Social software applications such as XING (formerly OpenBC), Ning, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook or the German StudiVZ are famous technologies that offer the possibility to create and present content and to connect people from around the world with each other. These new technologies offer areas for intensive discourse, as well as the potential for feedback and support mechanisms. New technology is identified as an important factor in the socialization process of individuals and cannot be considered as something separate. SCHETSCHE (2006), co-editor of the book “The google society” (jointly with LEHMANN 2005), characterized today’s situation as a digital knowledge revolution (cf. PFERDT 2007a). And the new generation of learners is not only growing up in such a society, they more or less shape it. Generally speaking, the expert commission “education with new technologies” in Germany describes the challenge of Web 2.0 or social software for education in the following way. The current development is driven by the universal availability of the Internet, which is based on broadband network access, and low-cost and powerful mobile devices. In addition, easy to use applications allow the production and delivery of content by nearly every single individual. This leads to significant changes in usage habits, which are already observable by the younger generation of Internet users. The amount of available content and potential business, co-operation and communication partners are is increasing rapidly. In this sense, Web 2.0 simultaneously drives developments forward and challenges the situation and is a solution to new forms of learning (cf. EXPERTENKOMMISSION 2007, 4 f.). Two main questions will be answered in this paper by offering innovative solutions. The first question is: How can learning environments be designed using social software? And the second question is: How can research on the design of social software-based learning environments be conducted to offer practical and theoretical solutions? Both are interesting questions for practitioners and researchers in the field of learning and educational science, especially with the focus on technology-based education. To investigate these questions, a definition of social software will be offered and, in addition, two perspectives on learning with social software will be introduced. Based on this, two different research paradigms will be analyzed concerning the search for practical usage or applied goals, as well as the general understanding of the phenomena. This leads to a new research methodology, which will be presented afterwards, and which goes beyond the goals of both approaches by simultaneously developing a practical solution (learning environment) and generating a new theory. The practical application of this research paradigm in a three-year research project will be discussed finally. 1.1 Social Software Social software can be interpreted as a generic term for simple and flexible Internet applications, which support co- operative sharing and editing of content. Essentially, social software is “social” only in the specific context, and the
- 2. added value emerges through the participation of users. In other words, software is not social per se, but rather this feature emerges only through co-operative usage of the specific application (cf. SCHMIDT 2006). There are three main characteristics of Web 2.0 and social software applications according to SCHMIDT 2006: (1) Content/information management: These are tools for organizing and producing content and information. This is about strategies, routines and expectations for the selection and reception of information. Digital content can be reviewed differently. Not everything can be counted as reliable, expert-generated content. (2) Relationship management: These are tools for sharing knowledge and for networking. This is about strategies, routines and expectations for the construction and maintenance of networks. Network-building is a high-profile feature of social software applications. User profiles are no longer merely a spin-off, but they become attractive and searchable content. (3) Identity management These are tools for the presentation of profiles on the Web. This is about strategies, routines and expectations for presenting oneself on the Web. Web 2.0 tries to display the digital identity of each individual. An individual’s profession, opinions, hobbies, certificates, purchases, and so on become public and serve to generate an identity. Therefore, social software applications are web-based applications, which support information, identity and relationship management in hypertextual and social networks (cf. SCHMIDT 2006, p. 37, cf. PFERDT 2007b, p. 149). In the context of education, social software offers various opportunities for learning as it allows for interaction between individuals, independent of time and place, as well as providing learners with additional capabilities concerning knowledge creation, interaction, feedback and support mechanisms. ERPENBECK and SAUTER 2007 describe this in their new book as a “learning revolution”, which just only has begun! Two perspectives can therefore be identified. Firstly, the usage of social software by learners is omnipresent and secondly, social software offers potential for designing learning environments. Both perspectives will be characterized shortly. 1.2 Social Software and Learners The first perspective focuses on the usage of new technologies such as Web 2.0 and social software to argue the extent of the influence of new technologies on learners, and therefore to justify the usage in learning environments. An empirical analysis of various German surveys shows that the usage of new technologies such as social software and Web 2.0 are aligned with tremendous changes for the socio-cultural world and the individual and collective living environment (life-world) of individuals (cf. KREMER 2008 and JIM-STUDIE 2007) The JIM study for example, offers representative data on the usage of new technologies by young people in Germany (cf. MEDIENPÄDAGOGISCHER FORSCHUNGSVERBUND SÜDWEST / JIM-STUDIE 2007) In summary, the following findings can be stated. In contrast with the nineties, today almost every young person owns a mobile phone. Flat rates and low-cost wireless broadband Internet access are available in nearly every household today, allowing completely new forms of content distribution. The Internet today cannot be compared to the Internet ten years ago. The JIM study further states that while the young people of 1998 were confronted with new information and communication technologies comparatively late in their childhood, today' “Generation @”, “net-generation” or “ne(x)t generation”1 has already grown up in the Internet s age and have been socialized with ICT. Furthermore, media literacy and the meaningful use of the diversity of media is more than ever a subject of intense discussion in society, school and politics. Concerning the introduced and defined social software, a quarter of young Internet users is actively involved in Web 2.0 and they produce their own content through the uploading of pictures, videos, music files or the writing of articles in blogs or newsgroups at least several times a week. Almost every third boy and every fifth girl with Internet experience contributes regularly to Web 2.0, and 14 to 17-year-olds are particularly active (cf. MEDIENPÄDAGOGISCHER FORSCHUNGSVERBUND SÜDWEST / JIM-STUDIE 2007). A more detailed examination of the study shows that the social software applications are mainly used passively. For example, 78 percent of Internet users searched for an article in the Web 2.0 encyclopedia Wikipedia, but only 4 percent have actively posted one, similarly to the video platform “YouTube”, where one in ten young Internet users has uploaded a video at least once, but three-fifths only use this website passively to watch videos. In “MySpace”, seven percent of Internet users between 4 and 19 years have already posted content and social software applications such as “YouTube”, “SchülerVZ” or “Wikipedia” are mentioned by 19 percent of young people (cf. MEDIENPÄDAGOGISCHER FORSCHUNGSVERBUND SÜDWEST / JIM-STUDIE 2007) 1.3 Social Software and Learning The second perspective displays the potential of social software for learning and therefore for designing and creating effective learning environments. Educational design parameters based on the constructivist learning paradigm offer a solution to the problem of inert knowledge2 as they focus particularly on the problem-based situation and the orientation towards genuine problem This term refers to a paper by Sabine Seufert and Taiga Brahm, St. Gallen 2007. Inert or tacit knowledge exists when knowledge can be retrievedy a request but learners cannot use it in the specific situation (cf. GRUBER / RENKL / MANDL 1997, p.171)
- 3. definitions, as well as on situated cognition (cf. LAVE / WENGER 1991) and co-operation between learners. The educational perspective of technology-based learning is particularly characterized by keywords such as situated cognition, complex problem definitions as objects of study, development of competences, etc. (cf. DILGER / PFERDT 2006). The position of constructivist learning theories emphasizes the need to create meaningful learning environments, which are designed as authentic problem contexts. Learning subjects have to be context-bound, in order to be understood as an active knowledge structure. The situative anchor of the knowledge is considered to show the learner the meaning and the active use of knowledge to solve problems or act competently in situations. Social software offers possibilities to achieve learning as it is claimed. For example, YouTube-Videos can act as an anchor in the situated cognition approach or weblogs or wikis can support the co-operative development of texts. “People will begin to ask why learning resources must be organized by hand by a designer before they can be used by students. Systems will emerge that allow students to be their own designers. Instead of viewing learning design as some sort of script in which students are actors, following directions, we will begin to see a model where students are players, following no script at all” (DOWNES 2004). Social Software in this understanding supports the learning process as tools and fosters active knowledge construction through guiding the process. It is no longer learning from technology but learning with technology (cf. DILGER / PFERDT 2006). The following table, Table 1, summarizes the mentioned changes and possibilities as key trends of social software and Web 2.0 on a technical and educational level and refers to the key authors. Table 1: Key trends and issues in Web 2.0, Learning and Teaching 2 Facing Research – Different Approaches at a glance Discourses in literature repeatedly show the contrast between two different main research approaches. On one hand, there is a research position which is characterized by the objective of gaining more knowledge, data or understanding of a subject or field of study, without having a specific application of theory in mind. This research can be identified as basic research and is often interpreted as testing theoretical hypotheses3 to produce universal theory in an experimental design, and participants are subjects, who are assigned to treatments. Critics argue that the basic research position produces theoretical knowledge, but does not apply these findings. On the other hand, applied research is aimed at using knowledge to solve a specific practical purpose or problem. Critics argue that applied research is purely for the development of practical solutions and cannot be characterized as science or research. These different research paradigms can also be found in the so-called “Pasteur's Quadrant” where STOKES 1997, in his famous book defined four categories of research, which are based on the motives that inspired it. He analyzed the research positions and named the categories for well-known scientists who fit the paradigm, based on the motivations that influenced their research activities. The major three of the four quadrants are: “Bohr's Quadrant” where pure basic research is done, which means that the work is inspired by the quest for understanding, but not by potential application See also POPPER 1994, who introduced the principle of falsification for hypothesis testing.
- 4. or use in practice. “Pasteur's Quadrant” where use-inspired basic research or strategic research is conducted, means work inspired by both the quest for understanding and its potential application or use in practice. “Edison's Quadrant“ where pure applied research is done, means the work is inspired by potential application or use in practice but not by the quest for understanding (cf. STOKES 1997). Consequently, the pure basic research and the pure applied research positions can be treated as opposite poles of a research continuum. A major controversy has been taking place for some years now in the scientific community of vocational education in Germany regarding the value of research. SLOANE 2005 as a major representative of research in vocational education, is defending a position which can be viewed as close to “Pasteur´s Quadrant”, and BECK 2003 represents a position close to “Bohr´s Quadrant”. SLOANE describes this discourse as follows: In vocational education research, there is a contrast between knowledge-oriented basic research on the one hand and applied educational research on the other (cf. SLOANE 2005, p. 321). Educational research is in an area of conflict of different expectations (cf. KAHLERT / REINMANN 2007). This area of conflict is displayed by both extremes of the research continuum: First, new knowledge and theories should be generated based on main research rules and secondly the knowledge produced should be applied to fields such as schools and colleges and produce reasonable, visible and tangible benefits and so contribute to the change of educational practice (cf. KAHLERT / REINMANN 2007). Reviewing the research literature, GIBBONS ET AL. 1994, also introduce a differentiation between research paradigms in their book “The New Production of Knowledge” by postulating a new kind of knowledge production and labeling it “Mode-2”. In contrast, “Mode-1” is, according to Gibbons and his colleagues, associated with Newton' model of s knowledge production and can be described by the following terms: academic, disciplinary, homogeneous, hierarchical, institutional and specialized. This is generally interpreted as science. However, “Mode-2” can be characterized using the following terms: application, transdisciplinary, heterogeneous and collaboration. The collaboration between researchers and practitioners in teams is seen as a central issue and is associated with reflexive knowledge production. With regard to vocational education research, SLOANE 2005, 2006 and 2007 also differentiates three types of educational research: Distant Research: Principally, this research type considers practice as an object of research. This approach is based on empirical-analytical methods in which practitioners are observed or take part in a survey as well as humanities research methods, in which practitioners are subject to distanced reflection. The testing of theory is a core goal in this type of research. Intervening research: This type of research is based on the action research approach, in which practice is subject to change and improvement by the researchers, whereas practitioners continue to be an object of research. Here, the application of theory plays the central role. Responsive research: The research types described focuses on different objectives. Distant research aims to improve theory while intervening research aims to change practice. However, responsive research combines these two objectives. This happens by developing, implementing and evaluating innovative projects. The researcher reflects the evaluation data back to practice and this is the starting point for joint reflection. Summarizing the different research paradigms by reviewing the major research literature of learning and educational science and vocational education, a dichotomy can be identified. The two poles on the continuum can be briefly summarized as follows: The one pole can be labeled as basic or pure research according to STOKES, Mode-1 according to GIBBONS and distant research according to SLOANE. Comparing the empirical-analytic research, pure research, Mode-1 and distant research, hardly any interventions in practical actions are determined and therefore the objective is not a sustainable change of practice. WEBER 1968 argues that in the paradigm of critical rationalism (cf. POPPER 1994), according to the intervention of research on practice, it never can be the purpose of science to determine specified standards and ideals for developing prescriptions for practice (cf. WEBER 1968, S149). The other pole can be characterized as applied research according to STOKES, Mode-2 according to GIBBONS and intervening research according to SLOANE. Action research aims to change social reality. The major question remains, to seek for a research approach, which offers, on the one hand solutions to problems of educational practice and, consequently, provides communicable developed theories, which are context-sensitive, useful for educational practice and ultimately increase scientific knowledge on learning and teaching (cf. REINMANN 2005, p. 62). Consequently, the question regarding an adequate research paradigm, which combines the two diametrically opposed poles, will be addressed in the remaining sections of this paper. 3 Design - Based Research (DBR) – a new learning science methodology In the 1990s, the concept of design experiments or design-based research was introduced because more and more researchers believed that many of the questions could not be adequately addressed by laboratory-based experiments or basic research (cf. BARAB / SQUIRE 2004). “Design-based research is not so much an approach as it is a series of ap- proaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts, and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic settings.” (BARAB / SQUIRE 2004, p. 2) The DBR approach (cf. COLLINS 1992, BROWN 1992, DESIGN-BASED-RESEARCH COLLECTIVE 2003, COBB / CONFREY / DISESSA / LEHRER / SCHAUBLE 2003, REINMANN 2005, SLOANE 2006) has a strong analogy to the “responsive evaluation approach” (cf. Sloane 1992) and the “science and practice communication approach” (cf. EULER 1994) which were developed in the 1990s and are based on the concept of understanding the messiness of real-world practice and co-operatively developing solutions to these real- world problems and generating a theory that characterizes the design in practice (cf. BARAB / SQUIRE 2004). DBR is
- 5. based on the need to examine learning phenomena, not in laboratories, but in real-life situations and not to stick to single variables as close measurement criteria and to include the design into the scientific process. Ascertained results of DBR are (1) contextualized theories of learning and teaching and knowledge about the process of designing the instructional design (theoretical output) and (2) tangible improvements for educational practice and the deployment of innovative potentials in educational practice (practical output) (cf. REINMANN 2005, p. 61). According to DBR, a bias related to the two different positions or poles of the research continuum is overcome. Generally speaking, the innovative DBR approach can be characterized as follows: In a natural learning environment, teachers and students are observed, new learning environments, based on theoretical assumptions (theory-driven), are developed and applied, in order to gain theoretical and practical knowledge about these learning environments (cf. BROWN 1992 or REINMANN 2005) An iteratively applied knowledge and development process consisting of learning design, implementation, evaluation and re-design, constitutes a circular process. That means, on the basis of theoretical considerations, a learning environment is developed and implemented. This scenario is tested with an empirical investigation consisting of qualitative and quantitative methods. Based on these empirical data, the learning environment is gradually optimized and is improved as a whole (cf. FAHRNER / UNWIN 2007 and JOSEPH 2004). The successive optimizing of the learning environment and the empirical (responsive) review with several iteration steps, leads to profound knowledge for learning science (cf. BELL 2004 and FAHRNER / UNWIN 2007, p. 153). The two phases of the DBR approach – the research and the development phase – are combined with two different development theories. In the design phase, a deliberate design of the learning environment in terms of a creation act is fulfilled (cf. SCHRAGE 1999). In the re-design phase, an adoption in the sense of the evolutionary principle is made to the conditions of the real operation. Both development theories can be described as two complementary innovation processes (cf. GASSMANN / ENKEL 2006, FAHRNER/ UNWIN 2007, p. 154). The DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE proposes the following five characteristics: “First, the central goals of designing learning environments and developing theories or “prototheories” of learning are intertwined. Second, development and research take place through continuous cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign (cf. COBB, 2001; COLLINS, 1992). Third, research on designs must lead to sharable theories that help communicate relevant implications to practitioners and other educational designers (cf. BROPHY 2002). Fourth, research must account for how designs function in authentic settings. It must not only document success or failure but also focus on interactions that refine our understanding of the learning issues involved. Fifth, the development of such accounts relies on methods that can document and connect processes of enactment to outcomes of interest.” (2003, p. 5). In summary, although showing local gains is an important element of DBR, it can be said, that the focus is on simultaneously developing a design and generating new educational theory (cf. Barab 2006, p.155). So, importantly, DBR goes beyond just designing and testing particular learning environments (cf. THE DESIGN BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE 2007). The last few years have seen a renewed effort to close the “credibility gap” (LEVIN / O’DONNELL 1999) in educational research. Some see this gap as arising from unscientific research approaches, while others point to the detachment of research from practice (cf. THE DESIGN BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE 2007). “Since Brown' and s Collin' influential works, the paradigm has evolved primarily as a means for studying innovative learning s environments, often including new educational technologies or other complex approaches, in classroom settings” (SANDOVAL / BELL 2004, p. 200). 4 Design based research in practice – The “KooL” project To give an example of a DBR project using the previously mentioned social software to design innovative and effective learning environments, I will now briefly introduce and discuss the 3-year design project “KooL” (co-operative (“k” in German) learning in web-based learning environments), which is now, in 2008, in its final year. (cf. Kremer 2007) The DBR project “KooL” is part of the BLK (Bund-Länder-Kommission) research program SKOLA (self directed and co-operative learning in vocational education) in Germany. The design, implementation and evaluation and re-design are conducted, not only by the researchers at the Department of Business and Economics Education at the University of Paderborn, but jointly with teachers at a vocational education school in Rheinbach, Germany. A literature review and experiences in the development of web-based learning environments in the research project led to the following research question, which is processed theoretically and examined empirically. How can complex learning environments be designed with social software? In this research project, social software like weblogs, wikis and podcasts are used to design the learning environments in vocational education. Two prototypes of learning environments are developed co-operatively between teachers and researchers. Taking the complex research field and the problem context into account, with the help of a differentiated approach and research methods, expected outcomes are generated. As expected outcomes, prototypes of learning environments with social software will be identified in the research project. Aspects concerning the design, implementation, evaluation and re- design of educational concepts for vocational education with innovative social software will be derived. A detailed description and analysis of the conditions of the respective learning environment is required and will provide insights concerning the usage and the design of learning with social software and thus help others to use social software efficiently in vocational education.
- 6. The following graphical illustration shows the classical research process of the DBR approach applied to the specific conditions to the research project “KooL” (cf. PFERDT (forthcoming)). Figure 1: Design-Based Research The Design begins with analysis during which researchers review important literature to identify gaps relevant to the design as well as to analyze learners and the learning environment. During the design phase, the theoretical and practical objectives are set, the design framework is determined, and the initial plan used to achieve these goals is formalized (cf. WANG / HANNAFIN 2003). An online questionnaire examining learning behavior in co-operative web- based learning environments with the main emphases on co-operation and social software was used to examine all students taking part in this project and a qualitative evaluation by interviewing groups of learners is also applied to generate data about the learning environments. Furthermore a projective method using open questionnaire items is used as a qualitative evaluation method to get access to the successful usage of social software as a tool for learning processes. Workshops are used to reflect on the empirical results of the research methods applied in the evaluation process. In addition, they are also used to present the latest research findings to the teachers in the school. Jointly, these findings are applied to the specific school context and the prototypes of the learning environments are improved. Within the framework of the DBR circle as outlined, the phases of problem definition, design, implementation evaluation and re-design are run through. The educational problem definition arises from real-world problems in vocational education and is not pre-determined by the researchers, which is a good and necessary starting point so that the teachers can identify with this problem and be motivated to implement educational change. Starting from a theoretical point of view, with the potential of social software for the design of learning environments, the teachers and researchers work co-operatively on designing prototypes for learning environments. So, these learning environment concepts are not imposed externally, but are developed by the actors (mostly teachers), according to the need for action in the vocational education courses. The actors develop, based on these problems, concepts (design phase) and refine the concepts, and the researchers examine the learning environments designed with the help of empirical qualitative and quantitative research methods, asking not only teachers but also students, as mentioned above. So, during the design and implementation phases, both the learning environments and research instruments are created and field-tested. Multiple research methods are used systematically and purposefully to collect and analyze data both immediately and retrospectively. Throughout analysis, design, development, and implementation, refinements are continually made based on further literature review and the obtained results using the collected data. Additional iterations through the cycle are conducted and finally, contextual and usable design principles are reported in a variety of formats, such as journal articles and research reports (cf. WANG / HANNAFIN 2003 and Kool-Zwischenbericht 2006, 2007, Kremer 2007) The use of the social software demanded that firstly, the potential of social software had to be revealed and an adaptation of the social software to the specific conditions of vocational training had to be carried out. It can be stated that in a first phase a technological hurdle had to be cleared, because social software was hardly known by the teachers and the potential had to be identified by the teachers. The next challenge was to adapt the social software for specific vocational education purposes. Another challenge was to consider social software not as an add-on but as an integral element of the learning environment (cf. KREMER 2008, p.11). The role of the researchers in this project is not limited to supporting the concept development and testing. They also have a particular interest and use the prototype for further exploration of educational research issues (cf. SLOANE 2007, p.14). As part of the DBR process, the following activities are parts of the DBR cycle: collection of baseline conditions
- 7. through different methods (questionnaires, interviews, documentation, open questionnaire items, etc.), formulation of problems, consulting services, for example workshops about learning theories, design of complex learning environments, educational use of social software and so on. Workshops, as mentioned previously, are also used to reflect on survey results, which then serve as an active intervention. 5 Conclusion – Towards a new design of learning science Conducting good research or science in the sense outlined is more than applying experimental methods or quantitative methods such as questionnaires. It also involves using theory to inform real-world practice through design and at the same time this practice comes to inform theory (cf. BARAB 2006). As I have indicated in this paper, social software is becoming an important factor not only for learners, but also for designing learning. The task here is not to lose the students’ attention by giving them old-fashioned tasks and out-dated books while they are using new technologies at home. We have to consider what students are dealing with in their everyday lives, and use the potential of these technologies to prepare them for future tasks, on the one hand, and integrate these technologies into learning environments on the other. The challenge researchers and practitioners are facing is how to design effective learning environments with social software. The two described research paradigms fail to help to find an answer this question because pure research tests and produces empirical data while not intervening in practice and applied research changes practice while not producing useful theory which can be transferable to different learning conditions and contexts. DBR, by grounding itself in the needs, constraints, and interactions of local practice, can provide a lens for understanding how theoretical claims about teaching and learning can be transformed into effective learning environments and is an important methodology for understanding how, when, and why educational innovations can work in practice (cf. THE DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE 2003). I have pointed out that DBR can provide a coherent research paradigm that bridges empirical theoretical research and educational practice. Two innovative concepts were introduced in this paper. On the one hand, educational designs of learning environments with social software were conceptualized and, on the other, a research methodology to study the design of these concepts to generate theoretical and practical solutions was presented. But one last task remains: disseminating the results! Literature BARAB, S. A. (2006): A methodological toolkit for the learning sciences. In SAWYER, K. (Ed.): Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 153-170, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. BARAB, S. / SQUIRE, K. (2004): Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1). BECK, K. (2003): Erkenntnis und Erfahrung im Verhältnis zu Steuerung und Gestaltung - Berufsbildungsforschung im Rahmen der DFG-Forschungsförderung und der BLK-Modell-Versuchsprogramme. In: Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik 99, S. 232-250. BELL, P. (2004). On the Theoretical Breadth of Design-Based Research in Education. Educational Psychologist, p243- 253. BROWN, A. L. (1992): Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), pp. 141-178. COBB, P. (2001): Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In CARVER, S. / KLAHR, D. (Eds.): Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress, pp. 455-478. Cambridge, MA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. COBB, P. / CONFREY, J. / DESESSA, A. / LEHRER, R. / SCHAUBLE, L. (2003): Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp. 9-13. COLLINS, A. (1992): Towards a design science of education. In SCANLON, E. / T. O'HEA (Eds.): New directions in S educational technology, pp. 15-22. Berlin: Springer. DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE (2003): Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp. 5-8. DILGER, B. / PFERDT, F. G. (2006): Cooperative E-Media Design - A Paradigm Shift in the Reusability Dilemma Discussion. Proceedings of the AACE E-Learn 2006 World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Honolulu Hawaii/USA, 2006. DOWNES, S. (2004). The rise of Learning Objects. In: International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, March 2004, Vol. 1. Nr. 3. EULER, D. (1994): Didaktik einer sozio-informationstechnischen Bildung, Köln 1994. ERPENBECK, J. / SAUTER, W. (2007): Kompetenzentwicklung im Netz. Netzwerklernen im Web 2.0, Luchterhand Verlag, Köln. EXPERTENKOMMISSION BILDUNG MIT NEUEN MEDIEN (2007): Web 2.0: Strategievorschläge zur Stärkung von Bildung und Innovation in Deutschland. Bericht der Expertenkommission Bildung mit neuen Medien. Online: http://www.bmbf.de/pub/expertenkommission_web20.pdf (05-10-2007)
- 8. FAHRNER, U. / UNWIN, A. (2007): Adaptive Verfahren zur Analyse und Verbesserung realer Lehr-Lern-Systeme. In REINMANN, G. / KAHLERT, J. (Hrsg.) (2007): Der Nutzen wird vertagt. Bildungswissenschaften im Spannungsfeld zwischen wissenschaftlicher Profilbildung und praktischem Mehrwert. Lengerich, u. a. GASSMANN, O. / ENKEL, E. (2006): Open Innovation. Die Öffnung des Innovationsprozesses erhöht das Innovationspotential., In: zfo, 3/2006 (75. Jg.), S. 132-138 GIBBONS, M. ET AL. (1994): The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage. GRUBER, H. / MANDL. H. / RENKL, A. (1997): Situiertes Lernen in multimedialen Lernumgebungen. In ISSING, L. / KLIMSA, P. (Hrsg.): Information und Lernen mit Multimedia, 2. überarbeitete Auflage, Beltz Psychologie-Verlags- Union; Weinheim, Basel, 1997, 167-178. JOSEPH, D. (2004). The Practice of Design-Based Research: Uncovering the Interplay Between Design, Research, and the Real-World Context. Educational Psychologist, pp. 235-242. KAHLERT, J. / REINMANN, G. (Hrsg.) (2007): Der Nutzen wird vertagt. Bildungswissenschaften im Spannungsfeld zwischen wissenschaftlicher Profilbildung und praktischem Mehrwert. Lengerich. KOOL ZWISCHENBERICHT (2006): http://www.rheinfit.de/KooL-Zwischenbericht-2006.pdf (10-02-2008) KOOL ZWISCHENBERICHT (2007): http://www.rheinfit.de/zweiter%20zwischenbericht/ZB2_2007_KooL_Kurzfassung.pdf (15-03-2008) KREMER, H.-H. (2008): Medien als Entwicklungswerkzeuge in selbstgesteuerten Lernprozessen. In: bwp@ Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, online Ausgabe 13. Online: www.bwpat.de/ausgabe13/kremer_bwpat13.pdf (20-04-2008). KREMER, H.-H. (2007) (Hrsg.): Lernen in medienbasierten kooperativen Lernumgebungen - Modellversuch KooL, S. 140-168. Paderborn: Eusl. LAVE, J., / WENGER, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge LEHMANN, K. / SCHETSCHE, M. (Hrsg.) (2005): Die Google-Gesellschaft. Vom digitalen Wandel des Wissens. Bielefeld. LEVIN, J. R. / O’DONNELL, A. M. (1999): What to do about educational research’s credibility gap? Issues in Education, 5(2), pp. 177-229. MEDIENPÄDAGOGISCHER FORSCHUNGSVERBUND SÜDWEST (Hrsg.): JIM-Studie 2007 - Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland, Stuttgart, 2007. Online: http://www.mpfs.de/ PFERDT, F. G. (2007a): Developing Intercultural Action Competence with Social Software and Individual and Collaborative Broadcasting Tools. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET): 10 - 13 July, 2007, Kumamoto, Japan PFERDT, F. G. (2007b): Wird Lernen sozial oder wird sozial gelernt? Lernprozesse mit Social Software gestalten. In: Kremer, H.-H. (Hrsg.): Lernen in medienbasierten kooperativen Lernumgebungen - Modellversuch KooL, S. 140-168. Paderborn: Eusl. PFERDT, F. G. (forthcoming): Forschung, die verbindet?! zum Design didaktischer Theorie und Praxis: Eine Forschungsmethodologische Positionierung im Rahmen einer “new learning science”. KREMER, H.-H. / SLOANE, P. F. E. (forthcoming): Forschungs & Entwicklungswerkstatt Paderborn. Forschungsmethoden, Paderborn, Eusl. POPPER, K. R. (1994): Logik der Forschung. 10. verb. Aufl. 1994. Tübingen. REINMANN, G. (2005): Innovation ohne Forschung? Ein Plädoyer für den Design-Based Research-Ansatz in der Lehr- Lernforschung. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 1, S. 52-69. SANDOVAL, W. / BELL, P. (2004): Design-based research methods for studying learning in context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), pp. 199-201. SCHETSCHE, M. (2006): Die digitale Wissensrevolution – Netzwerkmedien, kultureller Wandel und die neue soziale Wirklichkeit. In: Zeitenblicke 5, Nr. 3. Online: http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2006/3/Schetsche/index_html#d53e45 (2007-01-10). SCHMIDT, J. (2006): Social Software: Onlinegestütztes Informations-, Identitäts- und Beziehungsmanagement. In: Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, Heft 2 2006, S. 37-46. SCHRAGE, M. (1999): Serious Play. How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. SLOANE, P. F. E. (1992): Modellversuchsforschung. Überlegungen zu einem wirtschaftspädagogischen Forschungsansatz. Köln. SLOANE, P. F. E. (2005): Wissenschaftliche Begleitforschung – zur Wissenschaftlichen Arbeit in Modellversuchen. In Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 101. Band, Heft 3 2005. SLOANE, P. F. E. (2006): Berufsbildungsforschung. In: Arnold, Rolf / Lipsmeier, Antonius (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Berufsbildung. 2., überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Wiesbaden 2006, S. 610 - 627. Sloane, P. F. E. (2007): Berufsbildungsforschung im Kontext von Modellversuchen und ihre Orientierungsleistung für die Praxis - Versuch einer Bilanzierung und Perspektiven. In: NICKOLAUS, R. / ZÖLLER, A. (HRSG.): Perspektiven der Berufsbildungsforschung. Orientierungsleistungen der Forschung für die Praxis. Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung, Bielefeld 2007, S. 11-60. STOKES, D. E. (1997): Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, Brookings Institution Press.
- 9. WANG, F. / HANNAFIN, M. J. (2003). Importance of design-based research for technology-enhanced learning environments, Proceedings of the E-Learn 2003-World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (E-Learn 2003), pp. 1813-1816. Norfolk , VA. WEBER, M. (1968): Gesammelte Aufsätze der Wissenschaftslehre, S. 146-214.