Renate Motschnig University of Vienna

1. Person-Centeredness in cooperative, blended learning and challenges for organizational development Renate Motschnig University of Vienna

2. Learning at three levels optimal learningrespects all three levels! I intellect II (social) skills III personality, attitudes; feelings, intuitions

3. Overview • Hypotheses regarding blended learning • Cooperative learning as a central activity • Blended learning (PCeL) at three levels • Cooperative PC learning • PCeL scenarios & their discussion: is there an added value and where does it come from? • Contribution of technology • The role of the 3 Rogers variables – extended meaning • Reactions, action research, PCA in HE network • If o.k., how to continue? How to have impact?

4. 3 Hypotheses • If the computer takes over significant parts of the knowledge transfer, more face-to-face time can be spent for real communication. • The more better and well-organized (e)-content becomes easily available (on the Internet), and the more administrative tasks are supported by the computer, the less extra effort will have to be spent on PC teaching/learning. • The betterthe staff is “trained“ in facilitating courses, the more added value and meaning will accrue. • Required: trust in students and in technology!!!

5. Cooperative learning as a central process: technology soft-sciences Research Knowledge management Cooperative learning Applications,industry Development

6. Conventional versus Blended Learning

7. Characteristcs of PC, Blended Learning (1) • Real, authentic problems; project-based approach; • E.g. Develop web-site for x (teams of 3 persons) • Develop a system that best supports students in informatics in their studies (28 student in teams) • Active participation • Choice of (up to x %) topics and course material • Elaboration of goals of teams and the group • Elaboration of selected topics by teams • Contribution of eContent • Contribution of project experiences/milestones

8. Characteristcs of PC, Blended, Learning (2) • Controlled freedom, loose guidance, companionship • Choices with suggested items and „any other to be discussed“ • Evaluation as mix of self- peer- and instructor evaluation • Guidance is provided but need not necessarily be followed • choice of techiques, • suggestions for evaluation sheets – respect for different kinds of learners • Self-initiated contributions are encouraged

9. Characteristcs of PC, Blended Learning: Reflection & Summary • Active contributions on the platform have value as • Preparation • Consolidation, afterwork • Persistance, reuse, repository for solutions • Central processes and motivation/meaning emanate in face-to-face encounters! • The platform supports the effectiveness of learning/problem solving encounters by enriching the process in the “here and now“ by extending it by past experience and planing for the future.

10. Cooperative Aspects in PC, Blended Learning • Goals: • learning from and with peers, • more activity, • more communication • multiple perspectives  more inner flexibility? • Tasks/experiences in small teams (3 persons) and group (15 – 30 persons) – differences • Presentation of results/material in front of group – group feedback • Review of milestones/results of partner team • Written team reflections on milestones + discussion

11. Contribution of Technology • Provision of material; vast resources as a basis for selection; choices;every participant is expected to contribute • Learning from more than one example • All peer projects are online, open for inspection • Transparency • Reaction sheets online; can be referred to during the next meeting; • Students agree to, wish, non-anonymous reaction sheets • Discussion forum

12. Contribution of Technology • Contact to resources outside the course setting • Persons, experts, community, … • material • Oral and written forms of expression encouraged – multiple ways to contribute, • Peer evaluation more feasible • Research is easier due to online questionnaires • Reactions/reflections can be made available to other students • but... still a lot more of time consuming for the instructor!

13. Conventional versus Blended Learning - Evolution

14. 3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning • Realness, openness, transparency: • Rogers: congruence, authenticity of the facilitator; + • Real problems, situated setting • Open feedback, • transparent reactions, multiple perspectives • Realness of facilitator is contagious  increased realness of participants

15. 3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning • Acceptance, respect • Rogers: acceptance of the whole person, his/her the feelings, meanings, goals, potentials; + • Participation: • in elaborating goals, choosing topics, suggesting projects • Trust in constructive team work,where individuals complement one another • Self-evaluation and peer comments • Feeling respected nourishes respect for others

16. 3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning • Understanding, empathy • Rogers: trying to understand meanings, intentions, targets, constraints, strengths of others + • Reacting to/exploiting particualar situations for learning • Exploiting given situation for optimal, situated course design • Ballance between individuality and conformity, between choices and requirements dictated by the curriculum • Since it feels good to be understood, why not try to understand others?

17. Learning at three levels, experiential learning I II III

18. Students‘ Feedback (4 groups with 14-18 students, reaction sheet for 3 blocks of 3hscales: 1.. I liked it; 2..neutral; 3.. I did not like it)

19. Questionnaire on Person-Centered Attitudes

20. Students‘ Reactions • Students feel they have learned much, surely more than in conventional courses. • Students know what they would improve on what aspect of their work if it were to continue. • Students find they enjoyed the course and even had some satisfaction and fun in doing their projects. • Students know to which areas they are going to apply the knowledge and skills they have learned. • Students unanimously are in favor of using the Internet in several ways: As a resource, as an active means of archiving and maintaining documents, and for communication purposes. • Some students are interested in the psychological and didactic foundations of the Student-Centered Approach. • Students in general wish to attend and enquire about further courses by the same facilitator. Some wish the course to continue.

21. My Reactions… • …wishing to share them here person-to person…

22. Questions • Is this generalization of the 3RV‘s and their transference into actions/situations justified? • Can this kind of learning be called Person-Centered, even if it just seems to scratch on the surface of personal development? • How could the added value be assessed? Is growth in social skills and personlity features probable? • How could learning processes be deepened?

23. Challenges for organizational development • Strategies on how to assess added value and how to convince others • How to capture PCeL wisdom? • International project; who could join it? • Staff development strategies • First step towards international cooperation; virtual community: PCA/HE: http://elearn.pri.univie.ac.at/pca

24. Workshop - Session • Thank you for your attention! • Every viewpoint or contribution is welcome!

25. Appendix

26. Q U E S T I O N A I R E

27. Cooperative Systems • Definition (Motschnig, 2003): A flexible constellation of technology, resources, people, and organisations that facilitates the communication, coordination, and learning necessary for a group to work together effectively in the pursuit ofmutual developmentand gain.