Monthly Archives: November 2009

NordLearn kursuse iseseisev lugmine vol 2

Ludvigsen, S., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A. Middleton, D. (in press). Intersecting trajectories of participation; temporality and learning. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., Säljö, R. (Eds.). Learning across sites – new tools, infrastructures and practices.

Knorr Cetina, K. (2001): Objectual Practice. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, E. von Savigny (Eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 175-188). London: Routledge.

Author want to develop some concepts designed to capture the affective and relational undergirding of practice in areas where practice is creative and constructive. Current conceptions of practice emphasize the habitual and rule-governed features of practice. Though much debate surrounds the exact specification  of the relevant rules and habits, most authors seem to agree that practices should be seen as recurrent processes governed by specifiable schemata of preferences and prescriptions.

It is characteristic of current times that many occupations and organizations have significant knowledge base and one would expect practitioners to have to keep learning and specialists who develop the knowledge base to continually reinvent their own practice of acquiring knowledge.

knowledge society argument

Callon, Michael (2002) Writing and (re)writing devices as tools for managing complexity. In John Law; Annemarie Mol, Eds, Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices. Duke University Press.

Management sciences. Management tools. Too little attention to the tools used by actors as they organize themselves. Without tools for collecting, constructing, processing and calculating information, agents would be unable to plan, decide or control.
The importance of the management tools becomes even more obvious as organizations and their environments evolve.
Author wants to explore the role of a category of recently developed management tools important to the service economy. He calls them writing and rewriting devices.
The discussed material was collected during two field studies made on 1995 and 1996. The first was a company that organizes cruises on the Seine and other was a company developing meal-vouchers.

Writing devices
Mentioned two firms had previously established and developed management tools intended to better define demand and develop customer loyalty, the concern was with quality.
*putting service provision into words (how the date and place of delivery of checks suggested by the customer are guaranteed etc)
*putting the customer into words (how clean were the toilets, temperature of the food etc).
*putting into words the sequence of actions making up the service (like handbook or bible, which contains all the needed information about cruise e.g, but most important – this is a process that puts actions into words without being a mere statement of what happens: writing down the sequences of elementary actions defines the content of service).

The writing device as mediation between individual and collective action.
Writing devices play a crucial role in constructing and objectifying services, their consumers and more broadly, the collective actions that make it possible to deliver services. Writing devices thus mediate between different actors on the one hand and the collective (the organization and its customers or partners) on the other.The extraordinary effectiveness of writing devices derives from the fact that they solve a theoretical question – in practice.

The work of writing:
– writing by several hands involves tough negotiations
– deleting and rewriting (handbook is written by several people)
-distributed writing – who writes and behalf on whom?

The question of the author

Who is the author? – undefined. Refers to the Foucault, who suggests: 1.  treating author as the results of a process of attribution; 2. author as a scribe, as the one who writes, who holds the pen; 3. emphasize the ownership – author may be identified on the basis of property rights; 4. beyond Foucoult – writing is a contract that binds three types of actor together: the firm, its employees and its customers.


Companies’ writing devices are used to interrelate a whole series of heterogeneous requirements and to make them compatible.

Writing devices lie at the heart of the organization in action and that without them organization would not exist, as it does, in a location between knowing and acting.

Eklund, A.-C., Mäkitalo, Å., Säljö, R. (in press). Noticing the past to manage the future. On the organization of shared knowing in IT-support practices. In S.Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, R. Säljö (eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices.


Motivational aspects in my research

In my research, there are some motivational aspects, that need to be observed.

1. Why teachers should want to be engaged in cross-border knowledge building? Why should they want to share their knowledge by crossing the borders between school and workplace?

2. How it could be possible to make the teachers feel as one whole community? There are motivational problems in order to communicate with each other and to feel as one community. Especially between practics and didactics and between teachers and teacher students. Who could they see the need for collaboration between other teachers, not only between the same subject teachers? If they could understand the SECI model principles, would the start seeing it differently?

3. Why the portfolio-based learning environment should be used for the cross-border knowledge building activities? Why technology at all should be used in these activities?

I need to find out the tensions that cause motivational problems and provide possible solutions so that using the technology in their activities would be as bonus.

Motivational aspects:

The external motivation usually depends upon the environment and conditions in which the person exists. Satisfaction and motivation are created with the help of external rewards, for example money, praise, recognition and negative such as punishment or rejection as well.

Internal motivation appears when the behavior is not controlled by the environment. The inner motivation is the result of a need of competence and self- determination. Thus the difference between external and internal motivation is not difficult for understanding, but a really big mistake is made when intrinsic/extrinsic are confused with internal/external. No matter internally or externally a person is motivated in two different ways:
-intrinsically – it happens when a person is himself passionate about doing some task
-extrinsically – when a person is made to perform a task, either externally (for example for getting money or avoiding punishment) or internally (because of an individual sense of self-worth).

Self-determinination theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro-theory of human motivation concerned with the development and functioning of personality within social contexts.

Research on Self-Determination Theory has included laboratory experiments and field studies in several different settings. In order to do this research, the authors have developed many questionnaires to assess different constructs contained within the theory.

I here use some of the questions that I might use in my research:

Questionnaire “perceived competence for learning”

Answers in 1-7 scale (not at all true – very true)

1. I feel confident in my ability to learn this material.

2. I am capable of learning the material in this course.

3. I am able to achieve my goals in this course.

4. I feel able to meet the challenge of performing well in this course.

Those questions can be asked for example during or after the observation of using the technology by the participants.

Questionnaire “Instrinsic motivation inventory”

Same scale

  • Questions that can be used while investigating the community building aspects (according to theory, are connected with the concept “relatedness“):

I interacted with this person because I had no choice.

I felt like I had to interact with this person.

I felt pressured while interacting with this person.

I’d really prefer not to interact with this person in the future.

Interacting with this person was fun.

I enjoyed interacting with this person very much.

I really doubt that this person and I would ever become friends/collegues

I found this person very interesting.

While I was interacting with this person, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.

I felt really distant to this person.


  • Questions that can be used after some certain (knowledge-building) activity (according to theory, are connected with the concept “usefulness“):

I believe that doing this activity could be of some value for me.

I believe I had some choice about doing this activity.

I think this activity is important for my improvement.

I really did not have a choice about doing this activity.

I think this is an important activity.

It is possible that this activity could improve my studying habits.

I am willing to do this activity again because I think it is somewhat useful.

I would be willing to do this activity again because it has some value for me.

I did this activity because I had to.


  • Questions that provide information about participant’s evaluation to the performance of his/her task (according to theory, are connected with the concept “perceived competence“):

I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to others

I felt tense while doing the task.

I am satisfied with my performance at this task.

I felt pretty skilled at this task.

I did the task because I had no choice.

After working at this task for awhile, I felt pretty competent.


Above mentioned questions can be used after the participant has done something – performed task or an activity.

But I need to have some questions related to motivation before the activity, in the stage of scenarios.

E. Lehtinen et al article “Work motivation”

Article focus’ on motivational aspects related to workplace, that I also need to consider in my research:

Studies on work motivation have been conducted, for example, on personal needs, feedback, social identity, or group working (Wood, 2000). Existing need theories focus on individual hierarchies ranging from ‘‘lower-level’’ needs for security, existence, or hygiene, through to ‘‘higher-level’’ needs for self-actualisation, achievement, and growth (Haslam et al., 2000). Recent theories emphasise the roles of society, the workplace community and of teams. The cognitive side of the work has also been noted to be important for motivation. For example, the idea of flow described by Csikszentmihalyi (1996) emphasises the importance of getting deeply involved in the task and, thus, being motivated to work.

The aim of this study was to explore how motivation to work and workplace learning are related to different professional positions and aspects of organisational environments

The context of my research:

different professional positions – there are strong conflicts between teachers from school and didactics from university. Teachers do not want that didactics somehow control their work in order to see what is the real situation in schools. Also didactics unfortunately see the teachers on lower position as they in university. It can be assumed that tensions in teachers networks can be prevented if there would be less hierarchical thinking inside of the community – teacher students are on the lowest position and university teachers on highest. All members of this community should be equal and they should follow the same norm documentation – qualification of teacher for example. Probably the issue of creating communities between teachers is not related to the technology as much, but rather with the change of thinking related to the communities.

organizational environments – my research is not focusing only on school as workplace and university as the place where academic knowledge is coming, but the emphases is on extended organization, where school and university are equal and there should be collaboration, harmonization and synergy between them. It is certainly dynamic knowledge-intensive organization, where participants are more task-oriented than workers in lower professional positions in more traditional workplaces.


The motivational orientation items were developed on the basis of the original orientation model developed for an educational context. However, the special characteristics of working life were taken into account in formulating the motivational orientation items.

The Task Orientation scale consists of items describing self-regulation of one’s work, experience of new challenges, flow experiences, and continuous attempts to learn more and improve one’s competences. Besides these individual level (Task Orientation) features, the scale also contains an item describing attempts to support co-workers’ competence development. The scale is very similar to the Task Orientation typical of school and university environments. The Social Community Orientation scale consists of items dealing with the motivational meaning of the social community, social relatedness, and the feeling of support given by the community.

Seci mudel vaja selgeks saada

Jõudsin täna arusaamale, et ma võin küll teoreetiliselt aru saada, mis on SECI model, aga tegelikkuses puudub mul igasugune aim, kuidas see minu doktoritöö jaoks tööle peaks hakkama ja kuidas ta IntelLEO jaoks huvisid teenib. Ma ei oska seda panna enda jaoks vajalikku konteksti.

Kõigepealt teen endale selgeks mudeli ise.

Ilmutatud teadmus – see väljendub ametlikes protseduurides, standardites ja sisaldub dokumentides, andmebaasides ja formaalsetes protsessides.

–> Minu jaoks tähendab see kooli ja ülikooli normdokumentatsiooni, muid regulatsioone, aga ka õpetajate reflektsioonid jm kirjalikud teadmusobjektid

Ilmutamata teadmus – individualiseeritud, personaalne teadmus, mis areneb tööprotsessi käigus saadud kogemustega, mis pole kirja pandud, kuid mille järgi käitutakse ja mida kõik nö teavad.

–> Minu jaoks on see õpetajate sisemaailm või kohvitassi kõrval maha peetud vestlus, mida kirjas pole.

SECI mudeli eesmärgid:

a) muuta indiviidi poolt organisatsiooni normidest lähtutud interpreteeritud personaalne kogemus indiviidi ilmutatud teadmiseks

Ehk – õpetaja mõtestab endale kooli normdokumentatsiooni, reflekteerib selle üle ja paneb selle kirja. Ta reflekteerib oma tegevuse üle, kuid teda suunavad ja piiravad normdokumendid.

b) seejärel erinevate indiviidide ilmutatud teadmist kombineerides muuta kohasemaks organisatsiooni norme

Ehk – õpetajad läbi üheskoos mõtestavad enda jaoks näiteks kutsestandardi individuaalsete reflektsioonide põhjal ja teevad muudatuste ettepaneku?

c) Sotsialiseerumise ja kombineerimise faasis kui suheldakse siis ka organisatsiooni ilmutamata (?) teadmist kohandatakse isikliku ilmutamata teadmisega

Ehk –

Kuidas võiks aset leida vastastikune suhtlus ilmutatud ja ilmutamata teadmuse vahel? Näiteks:

1. Täiendkoolitus, praktika (ehk siis ametlik lähenemine?)

2. Normdokumentide ja standarditega paika pandud käitumisprotsessid

3. Koostöövahendid

4. Mitteametlikud mõttevahetused, võrgustikud, kogukonnad (ehk mitteformaalne lähenemine?)

SECI mudeli komponendid

1. Sotsialiseerimine – varjatud teadmuse jagamine üksikute isikute vahel; oluline on indiviidi eesmärgid ja need ei pea olema kooskõlas kaaslaste eesmärkidega.

–> Õpetajad reflekteerivad ja planeerivad oma tegevust, seavad omale eesmärke vastavalt oma isiklikele vajadustele, võivad võtta aluseks organisatsioonide poolt loodud/pakutud normdokumentatsiooni.

2. Väljutamine – varjatud teadmuse tõlkimine täpseks teadmuseks;

–> Siin õpetajad planeerivad oma arengut küll vastavalt eelpool mainitud normdokumentatsioonile, kuid nüüd nad püüavad oma eesmärke harmoniseerida vastavalt organisatsiooni omadega ja kutsestandardiga.

–> Õpetajad võtavad normdokumentatsiooni, analüüsivad seda vastavalt enda vajadustele, teevad selle kohta märkmeid ning salvestavad selle

–> Loodud teadmusobjektid õpetajate poolt on taaskasutavad (õpetajate endi või kaaslaste?) poolt, et luua oma nö õpitee. Kas siin on mõeldud, et õpetaja enda poolt loodud sisu kui märk oma arengust. Siis käib ilmselt ka enda portfoolio esitamine kui tõend teatud pädevuste ja kompetentsuste omandamisest?

3. Kombineerimine – täpse teadmuse muundamine kasutatavasse vormi;

Siin tekib ühistegevuse tulemusel uus teadmus.

Kas näiteks, kui õpetajakoolituse tudengid loovad praktika portfooliod individuaalselt ja need seejärel võetakse ülikooli poolt kasutusse kui õppematerjalid, on kombineerimine? Või eeldab see rohkem õpetajakoolituse tudengite ühisloomingut, mille ülikool võiks hiljem kasutusele võtta? Näiteks tegevõpetajad analüüsivad üheskoos olemasolevat õpetaja kutsestandardit ja teevad sellele parandamisettepanekuid.. kas see?

4. Sisestamine – täpse teadmuse kasutamine praktikas, “õppimine tegutsedes”, so uus varjatud teadmus. Personaalne õppimine nendest tegevustest, mida individuaal on ise kogenud või läbi teinud.

—> Peamiselt on see pädevusepõhine enesearengu planeerimine ja reflekteerimine individuaalses võtmes?

—>Kogukonna tasandil on samuti tegevuse planeerimine, kuid aluseks on juba loodud õpiteed vms? Mida see õpetajakoolituse kontekstis tähendab?



Võtan näiteks esmaõppe stsenaariumi ja toon SECI komponendid sisse:

Internalization – Tudeng kirjutab eneseanalüüsi praktikale minnes, millised ootused tal on, mis eelmisest praktika korrast jäi hingele ja tuleks seekord paremini teha jms.

Socialization – tudengid suhtlevad omavahel, jagavad oma materjale, reflektsioone, ehk isegi annavad tagasisidet teineteisele.

Combination – Juhendaja ja tudeng arutavad koos tunnikava üle, mille tudeng oli ettevalmistanud. Nad otsivad juurde sarnaseid materjale ja võrdlevad neid ning saavad siit juurde uusi mõtteid. Arutluse tulemusel viiakse sisse mõned muudatused, mida järgmine kord tuleks teisti teha

Externalization – tudeng rakendab oma muudetud tunnikava, reflekteerib selle rakendumise üle, analüüsib oma käitumist vastavalt kutsestandardile.

Kas hakkab looma?



Esimene konverentsi ettekanne tehtud

Projekti e-Jump 2.0 raames kirjutasime Mardi ja Priiduga artikli Edeni raames korraldatavale konverentsile Open Classroom. Konverents toimus sel aastal Portos 15.-17. oktoober ja kohalikuks korraldajaks oli projekti partner University of Porto.

Artikkel pealkirjaga “Introducing Open Classroom 2.0 to Teachers through Immersive Learning” võeti vastu ja reisi võis planeerima hakata. Minu jaoks isiklikult oli pikka aega ületamatuks probleemiks, et kes ettekande teeb. Kuid ma teadvustasin endale, et doktorandina ma lihtsalt pean hakkama ettekandeid tegema ja esinemisnärvist saab üle vaid tänu kogemusele. Lisaks oli see võimalus teenida äärmiselt lihtsalt punkte õppekava täitmise jaoks.

Minu sessiooni pealkiri oli Web 2.0, sessiooni juhtis äärmiselt muhe sakslasest vanahärra Walter (perekonnanimi ei meenu), kes nägi välja väga Rein Raua sarnane. Saksaliku täpsusega pidas ta kinni ettekande pikkusest ning ka küsimustel ei lasknud väga pikaks minna, mis tegi sessiooni sujuvaks ja hästi jooksvaks.

Minu ainus tingimus oli, et kuulata ei tohi ettekannet ei Priit ega Mart. Priiduga polnud õnneks probleemi, ta hoidis Miiat, kuid Mart arvas, et vähemalt küsimuste ajaks ta tuleks mulle appi. Sellega olin nõus, kuid õnneks hakkas tal koosolek ja ta ei tulnud üldse saali. Kuna samal ajal toimus kokku 4 paralleelsessiooni, siis osalejate hulka arvestades, hindasin, et kuulama tuleb ehk 20 inimest. Tegelikult läks saal täis ja istekohti jäi puudu, seega umbes 50 inimest. Üks kuulajatest oli ka kolleeg Tiigrihüppe SAst.

Aus ülestunnistus, päris peast ma ei jutustanud, märkmed olid ikka abiks. Kuid põhimõtteliselt sain räägitud ilma koperdamata. Üks küsimus tuli publikust, et kuidas saaks suunata õpilasi tegelema rohkem kollaboratsiooniga, milline on siis õppejõu roll. Ning teise küsimuse küsis sessioonijuht Walter, et millised väljakutsed on sellise projekti juures, kus on nii aukartust äratav konsortsium ning millised väljakutsed on sellist tüüpi kursuste rakendamise juures, kus on 120 osalejat nii mitmest riigist. Ja oligi kõik.

Minuga samas sessioonis esines kõigepealt Juan Jose Gaitan Pinto Hispaaniast ja ma ausalt öeldes ei suuda ümber jutustada, milles tema rääkis. Pealkiri oli igaljuhul Creation Experiences of Virtual School Communities Incorporating web 2.0 ja ma saan aru, et tema tööpaik arendas välja mingi kommertslahendusest õpikeskkonna, kus olid olemas blogi, wiki jms. Ühesõnaga ma ei saanud aru innovaatilisusest, aga see selleks.

Peale mind esines üks naine, Angelina Macedo, kellel oli samuti esimene konverentsi ettekanne elus, kuid tegemist oli inglise keele õpetajaga, mistõttu meie esinemiskogemused ja keeleoskus polnud võrreldavad, kui me koos pabistasime seal. Niisiis, tema ettekanne meie kolme seast osustus kõige menukamaks. Tema ettekanne oli pealkirjaga Learning to Teach in Second Life ja rääkis oma edukast kogemusest, kuidas kasutada õppetöös Second Life’i. Kuulajaskonnas tekitas see enim diskussiooni, kuid küsimuste asemel sai kuulda enim väiteid “Second Life on mõtetu” või “SL tundub jama, ma korra käisin seda vaatamas”. Ma isiklikult pole ka SL-ga kokku puutunud, kuid ma ei kujuta ette, et ma läheks kuhugi lahmima, et see on mõtetu nähtus, nagu suur osa prouasid publikus seda tegid. Lõpuks sessioonijuht kutsus publiku korrale.

Innovaatilise lahendusena oli kasutuses twitter, kuhu ettekannete ajal lisati sissekandeid.

Ja rosinaks oli see, et nii meie kui ka minu sessioonis osalenud naisterahva artiklid märgiti ära viie parima sekka.

Meie artikkel pälvis äramärkimise valdkonnas: for the creative approach to teacher training by social networking.

Hea kogemus oli ja olen enda üle uhke. Järgmine kord tahan aga rääkida ilma märkmeteta ja peast. Või noh, ülejärgmine kord.