Jan Van Bruggen

A Design Model for Lifelong Learning Networks

The provision of lifelong learning facilities is considered to be a major new direction for higher and distance teaching educational institutes catering for the demands of industry and society. ICT networks will in future support seamless, ubiquitous access to lifelong learning facilities at home, at work, in schools and universities. This implies the development of new ways of organizing learning delivery that goes beyond course and programme-centric models. It envisions a learner-centred, learner-controlled model of distributed lifelong learning. We present a conceptual model for the support of lifelong learning which is based on notions from self-organization theory, learning communities, agent technologies and learning technology specifications such as IMS Learning Design. An exploratory implementation has been developed and used in practice. We reflect on the findings and future directions.

Modeling assessment for re-use of traditional and new types of assessment

In the new learning approach assessment is integrated in learning and instruction and addresses complex traits (the abilities, the characteristics in a specific domain) of students. To match this new approach, new types of assessment are developed, like peer assessment or competence assessment. The development of these new assessments is an expensive and intensive activity. Exchange initiatives promise to reduce those efforts by the re-use of materials. But they also raise questions: is it a complete assessment or are there specific parts of an assessment that can be re-used? And is re-use limited to particular item formats? In order to support the re-use of both new and traditional assessment types an educational model for assessment is developed. In this article we present this model. The model is validated against [Stiggins, R. J. (1992). Het ontwerpen en ontwikkelen van performance-assessment toetsen [Design and development of performance assessments]. In J. W. M. Kessels, & C. A. Smit (Eds.). Opleiders in organisaties/Capita Selecta (pp. 75-91). Deventer: Kluwer (afl. 10)] guidelines for the development of performance assessments, the four-process framework of [Almond, R. G., Steinberg, L., & Mislevy, R. J. (2001). A sample assessment using the four-process framework. CSE Report 543. Center for study of evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/cresst/reports/tech543.pdf; Almond, R. G., Steinberg, L., & Mislevy, R. J. (2003). A four-process architecture for assessment delivery, with connections to assessment design. CSE Report 616. Center for study of evaluation. University of California, Los Angeles], a specification for the exchange and interoperability of assessments and performance assessment as a new type of assessment. The educational model for assessment gives new input to the alignment of the teaching, learning and assessment.

A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization

The chapters in this volume bear witness to the common belief of the authors that visualizing argumentation facilitates a number of processes that their users, professionals or learners, engage in. These processes, we surmise, can often be typified as cooperative’ problem solving and there are many good reasons to assume that visualizing argumentation can facilitate this process. Unfortunately, there are other good reasons to assume that the reverse may occur as well. Argument visualization can quite effectively hinder problem solving. In this chapter we try to reach a better understanding of this “mixed blessing” of argument visualization and to formulate a number of recommendations on how to use it more profitably.

Latent semantic analysis as a tool for learner positioning in learning networks for lifelong learning

When referring to this paper please use the original source: British Journal of Educational Technology, 2004, 35 nr 6, pp. 729 - 738

Learning and Understanding in Virtual Teams

There are sufficient reasons to conclude that virtual education is not just hype. There are, among others, economic motivations such as bringing one learning module to a larger audience of learners, and pragmatic reasons such as achieving flexibility in time and space for learning, which is especially important for adult learners. However, from a pedagogic point of view there are some doubts. Current technologies meant for learning and working in teams are often designed for functional collaboration (e.g., sharing documents, communicating), but fail to support learning, understanding and team forming (e.g., carrying out pedagogically adequate tasks, understanding each others work and group dynamic processes) in virtual teams. In order to understand virtual teams, we need to know how we can study learning and understanding in virtual teams. Interesting research questions are: Which concepts are important in understanding virtual teams? How can we measure those concepts, and in what type of setting (e.g., experimental study, case study)? The aim of this special issue is to provide and discuss concepts and pragmatic insights in research on learning and understanding in virtual teams. The aim of this article is to set the stage for those articles.

Designing External Representations to Support Solving Wicked Problems

In this chapter we consider the use of external representations in a CSCLenvironment in which learners collaboratively solve ‘wicked’ problems (e.g. how can we reduce school drop-out?) or analyze proposed solutions to these problems (did this anti-corruption program work?). Solving these problems or analyzing proposed solutions obviously requires analysis of the causes of the problem as well as considerations about which actions are likely to be successful and acceptable. The nature of these ill-structured problems is such that neither analysis nor solutions are ‘true or ‘false’: they are the result of an argumentative process in which participants eventually reach an agreement on a common analysis and a solution, that may be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

Towards an open framework for adaptive, agent-supported e-learning

Refer to: Van Rosmalen, P., Brouns, F., Tattersall, C.,Vogten, H. Van Bruggen, J, Sloep, P., & Koper, E.J.R. (in press). Towards an Open Framework for Adaptive, Agent-supported e-learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education.

Positioning of Learners in Learning Networks with Content, Metadata and Ontologies

Positioning in learning networks is a process that assists learners in finding a starting point and an efficient route through the network that will foster competence building. In the past we have explored computational approaches to positioning based on the contents of the learning network and the behaviour of those participating in it, more or less ignoring different efforts to stimulate positioning and competence development from a top-down perspective. In this paper we introduce a research agenda for positioning in learning networks, discuss several cases and give an outlook on the development of a positioning service for learning networks.

Using the Personal Competence Manager as a Complementary Approach to IMS Learning Design Authoring.

In this article TENCompetence will be presented as a framework for lifelong competence development. More specifically, the relationship between the TENCompetence framework and the IMS Learning Design (LD) specification is explored. LD authoring has proven to be challenging and the toolset currently available is targeting expert users mostly working for institutions of higher educations. Furthermore these tools re-enforce a fairly rigid top-down workflow approach towards design and delivery. This approach it is not always the most suitable model in all circumstances for all practitioners. TENCompetence provides an alternative bottom-up approach to LD authoring via its first implementation: the Personal Competence Manager (PCM). Constructs such as competence profiles and competence development programmes, let users define, modify, and acquire competences they need for achieving their personal goals. We will show how the PCM provides support for these constructs and stimulates the bottom-up development of learning materials. We will also show how these concepts can be mapped towards LD. This allows the ad hoc designs of the PCM to be captured in a unit of learning (UOL). These UOLs can be enhanced and eventually fed back into the PCM, therewith closing the edit cycle. This editing cycle allows for a gradual integration of bottom-up ad hoc designs with more formal top-down designs introducing LD in a gentle fashion.

Innovating education with an educational modelling language: two case-studies

The intent of this study was to investigate how to maximise the chances of success of an educational innovation—specifically one based on the implementation of the educational modelling language called EML. This language is both technically and organisationally demanding. Two different implementation cases were investigated, one situated in an institution for higher professional education that caters for on‐campus students; the other in an institution for higher, open distance education, that serves off‐campus, home‐based students. Diffusion‐innovation theory is used as the backdrop for the analysis. It helps us to understand why the implementations failed and what measures might be taken to avoid future failure in similar situations.