Anneke Eurelings

University of Maastricht

Since 1994 I got involved, as Director of the Academic Computing Centre at the University of Maastricht (UM),  in the question if and how information and communication technology could facilitate learning in a Problem Based Learning Curriculum. Access to information, sharing ideas and discussing these between peers and the tutor, key elements in a PBL approach, all seemed to connect well to the basics of internet, groupware and discussion forums. To deepen my insight in (collaborative) learning  and the relationship with technology, I got in 1994 a four month leave that I spend at Syracuse University and during which stay I also went to visit relevant research groups like OISE, Vanderbilt and the University of Illinois. As a result of the study leave a strategic planning document on starting up innovation of the UM curricula with information technology, was brought forward to the University Community. In this planning document the UM defined the POLARIS project as one of the core  projects of research that would help us to better understand the relevance of CSCL for Problem Based Learning in Maastricht. From 1995 until 1998 I took up the position as coordinator ICT&Education at the UM, as part of which together with Frans Ronteltap, we managed the POLARIS project from 1996 until 1998 (http://www.unimaas.nl/~electra/polaris) The POLARIS project was part of a larger Euregional project ELECTRA (http://www.unimaas.nl/~electra/), of which I was the coordinator, that was subsidized by the European Commission in the fourth framework.

The POLARIS project developed a collaborative learning environment that supports students during their self-study and allowed them to search for information, to articulate their findings and ideas on the learning issues agreed upon and to discuss them between one another.  Experiments with the POLARIS prototype took place in two faculties during four block periods. A considerable amount of our time went into the design of an adequate evaluation approach. The results of the experiments were on average very positive. The quality of the students contribution was good to very good, although the interaction was limited and the results on their regular block test were not significant better. Students liked working with the system and felt that the new possibilities for continued collaboration  through a virtual environment was very motivating for their learning behavior and that they liked the possibilities to get more insight in the learning approach and learning results of others. Besides the positive outcomes more new questions came up. Research questions that focus on the relationship between the Polaris environment and different knowledge domains, different levels in the curriculum, the role of the tutor, the effectiveness of different types of feedback and how to optimize the relationship between real meetings and virtual meetings.

Considering the outcomes of the project the UM decided that to continue stimulation of the innovation of the PBL curricula at the UM faculties it would be wise to create a new structure, the Maastricht Learning Lab (MLL), to help faculties to develop, evaluate and improve tools to support collaborative learning. The MLL is part of the Maastricht McLuhan Institute (http://www.mmi.unimaas.nl ), since the start up at January 1999 I have been assigned as director of the MMI and head of the Learning Lab.  At the MLL we have started up the following projects: continuation of the POLARIS development, a  project to develop a Course Management System, and a project that analyses requirements for knowledge-building environments in business. We are starting up projects on development and evaluation of knowledge-building environments for dual learning and for part-time distance students.

Collaboration and exchange of our work with others has always been seen as a very important way to advance our work. As a result we have been actively looking for partners which we have found in Uniscene (University Network of Innovative Student Centred Education organizations in Europe) and with the Stanford Learning Lab (http://sll.stanford.edu/index.shtml).  Furthermore, we participate in the SURFeducation community through projects, the POLARIS2 project of the UM with two other institutes of higher education, evaluation projects the 3WLS project, and by membership of the advisory board of SURF on educational issues (http://www.surf.nl ). At the European level we are also active contributors to the discussion in the area of technology enhanced learning: in march 1998 we organized a European conference on "Bringing Information Technology into higher Education" (BITE) and furthermore through participation in the Steering Committee of the European Memorandum of Understanding in multimedia for learning and training: Prometheus (http://prometeus.org/) .

The statements above show my involvement in the area and the approach we have followed. My involvement in the area can be characterized as follows: having 'dreams', ideas on new ways of learning through technology, in organizing the process of experimentation and validation, in building new organizations to continue this process on a more structural basis. And last but not least in fascination on how difficult it is to exchange our experiences and data and that as a result transfer of knowledge and experience in the area of CSCL is still so limited. Partnerships are mend to strengthen our individual knowledge through collaboration and exchange of experiences, however this requires a common language. For me it is a challenge to look for ways to define a common language. This can only be done in focussing on a certain area of technology enhanced learning, the Knowledge Building Environments, and in finding partners who all commit to this challenge: defining a framework for evaluation. Until now besides discussing this issue at SLL, SRI and University of Illinois, I am participating in two projects to develop ideas on frameworks of evaluation: the SURF project of 3WLS and the Assessment-team project of the Wallenberg Global Learning Lab Network of Stanford. It is from this perspective that I am very interested in participating in the Workshop of Collaborating on the Design and Assessment of Knowledge Building Environments in the 2000's.

From a research perspective, when dealing with an emerging field and in attempting to assess its likely impact, it is necessary to recognize:

·        the overall aim of providing a cogent, detailed portrait of the phenomenon

·        the value, but difficulty of grappling with complex phenomena in real-life contexts

·        that the complex and contemporary character of the particular field of study diminishes the degree of control that can be exerted by the investigator

·        a need to incorporate multiple sources of data as a means of acquiring and collaborating observations

·        a tendency to rely heavily, albeit not exclusively, on qualitative data.

Multimedia collaborative learning environments present an intrinsically complex research agenda for the educationalist, which can only be resolved by integrating a number of approaches which may or may not have their origins in what has been traditionally regarded as educational research. First of all the educational researcher must seek to inform and be informed of both the techniques and the findings of relevant design and usability research. Secondly, the development is inextricably bound up with the wider debate of curriculum development and pedagogical issues associated with the drive towards greater learner autonomy and greater flexibility. And finally a significant debate surrounds the twin issues of cost-effectiveness. 

I see the following relevant issues that need to be discussed:

·        the research paradigm we espouse (positivist versus the naturalistic approach), and if we can define a set of methods to be used;

·        defining the educational framework of collaborative knowledge-building environments;

·        what is the objective of evaluation with respect to stakeholders, the design process, the learning process and its outcome;