Rainer Kuhlen Informationswissenschaft – Universität Konstanz FB Informatik und...

Rainer KuhlenUniversity of Konstanz

Germany

Department of Computer and Information Science

Collaborative knowledge management in an e-learning environment (K3)


Germany




Germany


also an opportunity to identify and to

overcome gender barriers



Germany


also an opportunity to identify and to

overcome gender barriers

This document will be published under the following Creative-Commons-License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/de//

Information Engineering - Department of Computer and Information Science University of Constance E-Learning and Gender – UCLA – GSE&IS March 08 2007 5


Universities of Applied Science (Polytechnics)

Darmstadt

Hamburg

Hannover

Köln

Leipzig

Potsdam

Stuttgart


Universities

Berlin HU

Berlin FU

Saarbrücken

Regensburg

Hildesheim

Düsseldorf

Konstanz

2


The Chair of Information at Konstanz University was established in 1980. After being affiliated with different departments, the Chair became part of the Department of Computer and Information Science in the year 2000. Information Science courses are curricular part of Information Engineering Bachelor and Master Studies.

Information Science in Konstanz is known for having coined the concept of the „pragmatic primacy“ of information: information is

knowledge relevant for action, or to put it in a formula – information is knowledge in action. The consideration of social, cognitive, political, economic, ethical, and cultural implications of information complements the often predominating technical approach to information.

Current book projecta2k4oi

access to knowledge for open innovation


Content – Topics

Gender differences -

findings from research

Gender-mixed course

information ethics

Gender differences

in rolebehaviour

Conclusion

Gender mainstreaming

ine-learning

K3 collaborative

e-learning paradigm

Gender differences

in discourse

K3 didactic concept

K3systemfeatures

3


K3 collaborative

e-learning paradigm


K3 (German acronym for communication, collaboration,

competence) is a knowledge management system in learning

environments for higher level academic teaching.

K3 collaborative

e-learning paradigm


K3 as a tool for collaborative work

to enable virtual groups (and in them, of course, individual learners)

to acquire information and communication competence

K3 collaborative

e-learning paradigm

to produce content and acquire knowledge in the special course domain


K3

didactic concept


Blended learning

Mixture of constructivism and instructionalism

K3

didactic concept


Blended learning - didactic mix

virtual group work

individual work

classic lectures

class room discussion

video conference presentations

K3

didactic concept


Combination of constructivism and instructionalism

discourse types roles reference objects summaries presentation

course description main topics work assignments work tasks reference objects feedback (evaluation)

K3

didactic concept


K3 collaborative

e-learning paradigm

K3 in a nutshell

Collaborative e-learning in K3

firstly, to enable virtual groups (and in them, of course, individual learners) to produce content and acquire knowledge in the special course domain, and,

secondly, to enable virtual groups to acquire information and communication competence.

K3

didactic concept


Moderator

PresenterCommunication competence

Information competence Summarizer

Researcher

role concept K3

didactic concept


K3

system features


K3 K3 Courses since 2004

Information ethics

Joint course Univ, Konstanz – Univ. Zürich

Joint course Univ.Konstanz – Univ. Genf

technical course

Joint course Univ. Konstanz – Univ. Berlin

discourse-oriented

Joint course Univ.Konstanz – Univ. Berlin – Univ.

Hildesheim


Types of K3 courses

K3 as a management tool for organizing courses

K3 as a knowledge base for single courses and for the whole curriculum

K3 as a tool for collaborative work in virtual groups


K3 5-level architecture

(1) course

(2) main topics

(3) work assignments

(4) specific tasks

(5) discourse objects




(6) reference objects

bibl. references web links upload files summaries presentations

4


Objectives Target groups Didactics Language Main topics Discourse types

Course – level 1

Information ethics Reference objects

Short course description

Learning contract

Extended course description


Main topics - level 2 (instructional mode)

What is information ethics?

K1 Privacy

B1 Human rights

B2 Knowledge ecology

K2 Digital divide

KB3 Who owns knowledge?


Main topics - level 2 (instructional mode)

Work assignments

Reference objects

Main topicK1 Privacy in electronic

environments


Work assignments - level 3

Topic work assigment: What is information

privacy?Beginning/end of

group work

Work assigment description

Assigned roles for work assignment

Evaluation of group work - by course

instructor

Work tasks Filter:userFilter:

discourse typeFilter:roles

Filter: date

Filter: free text


Work tasks - level 4

Discourse

Work task „Privacy – data traces“

Results:Summariespresentation


Work tasks - level 4

Discourse for work task „privacy - data

traces“


Work tasks - level 4Role: ResearcherDiscourse type:

Addendum

Reference objectshyperlinksliterature


(1) Role specification (M=moderator; P= presenter; S= summarizer)

(2) Discourse type (Kritik=criticism; These= thesis; Frage=question; Ergänzung=addendum;...)

(3) New contribution, so far unread

Fig.4 K3 discourse with discourse objects – in the thread paradigm

Discourse objects – level 5

8



ine-learning



The gender concept, in contrast to the bi-

polar sex concept, considers differences

between male and female behavior and

their norms/value systems to be socially

and culturally constructed.



Gender mainstreaming is not the same

as the promotion of women or a politics of

equalization of women, but rather a

politics of equalizing the opportunities

for development both for men and women.

http://www.bmbf.de/pub/women_in_education_and_research.pdf.



inGermany

„Innovation and work place in the information society of the 21st century“

equal Internet access for men and women

a 40% contingent of women in IT-related professional

training and in the first semester in computer science

a significant consideration of women in other

government programs, such as media and e-learning

objectives

http://www.bmbf.de/pub/women_in_education_and_research.pdf.




Some findings from research

Women tend to underestimate their computer

competence compared to men even if they

have a higher competence profile than that of

their male colleagues.





Confidence levels of the female CS majors are

often lower even than the male non-majors.





Male students prefer individual work whereas

female students like group work.





Women are less likely to engage in criticism of

one other.





5


Gender-mixed course

in information ethics


Gender-mixed course


23 participants, 12 from Berlin (library science), 11 from Konstanz (information engineering)

11 male (7 Konstanz, 4 Berlin)

12 female (4 Konstanz, 8 Berlin)

6


Blended learning – Phases in the information ethics course

Gender-mixed course



Hypotheses

H1 There are gender- and domain-specific differences in course activity.

H2 Men, independently of their domain of study, tend to take over more prestigious roles in virtual group work, whereas women are willing to take over the remaining, more service-oriented roles.

Gender-mixed course


7


H3 Men tend to be more initiative-oriented and critical in discourse, whereas women act more cooperatively by reacting to other people’s comments.

H4 The gender composition in virtual group work has an effect on the performance of the virtual work.

Hypotheses Gender-mixed

course in information

ethics

7


Discourse objects as typed objectsOrganization of discourse

Initialization of discourse (to get discourse started): question, thesis, new topic

Enhancement of discourse: addendum, critique

Results of discourse: summaries, presentations

Gender-mixed course


8


Gender differences

in discoursein detail


Gender differences in

discourse

H1 There are gender- and domain-specific differences in course activity

The median of the total number of gender-specific contributions shows clearly more activity on the part of the women.

This is true both for the total number of comments (column 9 median/f=61 vs. median/m=51)and for the number of reference objects (column 13 median/f=29 vs. median/m=18).

10




discourse

9

Men in the male-dominated Konstanz group are more active than men in total (58,5/m/KN vs. 51/m/total), and men in the female-dominated Berlin environment are even dramatically less active (36/m/B vs 51/m/total and 58,5/m/KN).

The same is true for the women’s behavior (but not as significant as for that of the men): (65,5/f/B - 61/f ; 65,5/f/B – 59/f/KN).


Gender-mixed course

information ethics

DataMale/female in male/females groups

11



Significant differences can be seen with respect to the reference objects. All female-related values are much higher than those of the male-related ones: f/total vs. m/total; B/total vs. KN/total; B/f only vs. B/m only; K/f-only vs. KN/M-only.


discourse

13


Gender-mixed course

information ethics

Data – total – Konstanz - Berlin

12


Gender-mixed course

information ethics

Data

11

Data – total – Konstanz - Berlin



discourse


Women add more information to existing discourse objects than men – thus they contribute considerably to the success of collaborative work.

All female-related values are significantly higher than those of the male-related ones: d/total vs. m/total; b/total vs. KN/total; B/f only vs. B/m only; K/f-only vs. KN/m-only.

13


Gender-mixed course

information ethics

Data

11



Women added significantly more new themes to their group work – this is true for all values in column 4, whereas men (data in column 6) seem to be more willing to criticize other group members´ contributions (without necessarily knowing the sex of the criticized person).


discourse

13


But:

Women in their own environment tend to be more critical than in a male dominated environment

whereas men seem to be more constant in their critical behavior.

Gender-mixed course

information ethics


H2 Women in general are more willing to take on role responsibility and thus feel more responsible for the success of collaborative work.

Gender differences in role

behaviour

14


H2 The higher degree of female responsibility is also supported by their willingness to take on the moderator´s role (internal group work activity).

Gender differences

in rolebehaviour

14


H2 Men tend to take on the more prestigious or more visible presenter role (external work), whereas women are willing to take over the remaining, more service-oriented internal roles.

Gender differences

in rolebehaviour

14


Gender differences

in discourse

H3 Men tend to be more initiative-oriented and critical in discourse

This hypothesis can only be confirmed partially and needs more detailed investigation.

The average values for men with respect to “question” (column 2) and “thesis” (column 3) are slightly higher

and with respect to “critique” (column 6) significantly higher compared to the ones for women,

whereas the values for women with respect to “new theme” are significantly higher than the corresponding ones for men.


Gender differences

in discourse

H4 The gender composition in virtual group work has an effect on the performance of the virtual work

This hypothesis could not be fully tested so far.

Data in the discussion of H1 show that men and women are in general more active in those environments where their sex is dominant.

Other results support the interpretation that both female-dominated virtual groups and male-dominated groups achieved better results (the female groups with slightly higher ratings) compared to gender-mixed groups.


Conclusion


Conclusion What do these gender-specific differences

mean?

Do we accept these differences, although we know

that they are (widely) socially and culturally

constructed and that they can be changed if the

environment changes, for instance via gender

mainstreaming politics?


Conclusion

Should we encourage men to reduce the extent of

critical and dominating discourse behavior and to

take on more service-oriented roles in group work

rather than aspiring to roles which give immediate

reward in the public?

What do these gender-specific differences mean?


Conclusion

Should women be encouraged to be more aggressive

and self-confident in their communicative style and to

take on roles which make more activity in the public

necessary?

What do these gender-specific differences mean?


Conclusion

We support the postulate that men and women not only have the same potential

but also that a learning environment should provide both sexes with equal opportunities to develop the skills and the behavior

that they consider adequate (for themselves) and

that the environment (in society, politics and professional life) expects of them.

15


Conclusion Major objective

Promoting individual talents and preparing students for

a successful and rewarding professional and public life

has always been a major objective in learning, and it

should be in e-learning as well.


Thank you for your attention

Power point slides – under open CC licence – can be downloaded:

http://www.kuhlen.name

or send an email to:[email protected]

to receive both the full text file and the powerpoint file

16


Functions of constructivism

Cognitive: Learning produces sustainable results when external information or the requirements of a task can be embedded in already existing cognitive structure, be it as confirmation, modification or contradiction of the learner’s existing knowledge

Motivation: The learning process will be better accepted and will lead to permanent (sustainable) knowledge when learning can be experienced as the result of one’s own activity, not as a mere adaptation to the knowledge of other people

Social construction: Understanding, knowledge acquisition and production is to a great extent socially constructed, based on collaborative knowledge-sharing interaction with others.

Rainer Kuhlen Informationswissenschaft – Universität Konstanz FB Informatik und...

Documents

Transcript of Rainer Kuhlen Informationswissenschaft – Universität Konstanz FB Informatik und...