<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Activating Thinking Skills with Mash-Up Research Environments: A Proposal</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Thomas Daniel Ullmann</string-name>
          <email>t.ullmann@open.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University</institution>
          ,
          <country country="UK">UK</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>97</fpage>
      <lpage>102</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Critical thinking skills are seen as one of the most important skills for researchers. Mash-Up Research Environments have the potential to activate these skills. While these environments already have their own value, this work provides a first step in answering the question of whether or not they activate thinking processes, and as a further step, what quality of thinking is activated. Considering the openness of such ensembles, we sketch a method for researching activation of thinking at web scale applying a field experiment approach. We outline an individual and a prototype of a collaborative research space and describe a thinking skill framework we will use to categorize thinking expressed in written accounts.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>reflection</kwd>
        <kwd>critical thinking</kwd>
        <kwd>mash-up research environment</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        The ability to reflect and think critically about information, to rate, and to review it, is
one of the key abilities of the modern information society. Recently, the Research 2.0
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] movement tries to leverage the possibilities of the Web 2.0 for researchers,
providing tools for research practice in the open space of the Web. We call this
research tools Mash-Up Research Environments (MRE).
      </p>
      <p>This work describes the first step of researching the relation between these
environments and thinking skills. The question is: How do Mash-up Research
Environments support the activation of thinking processes, especially in critical
thinking?</p>
      <p>Today’s researchers use more and more online tools to support their daily work.
For example, they use these tools to inform themselves about new publications and
other web resources, to engage in social networks with their peers, to use it for online
collaboration and communication, and to share resources. Mash-Up Research
Environments are able to incorporate these widespread resources and functionalities
in a single environment. They use widgets (mini applications), which usually provide
a single functionality of a larger web application. A combination of widgets forms the
mash-up environment. Due to its flexibility to select several widgets for an
environment, it could be used to examine which combination of widgets help to create
an environment beneficial for research practice and to activate thinking processes. We
will call these widget ensembles an event space and the time-span of people working
with this space the event duration. Furthermore we distinguish between three types of
widgets. Activation widgets, which are meant to be thought-provoking as the main
component of the mash-up environment. Account widgets to give possibilities to
express thinking, and narrative widgets, which can be used to support the thinking
process.</p>
      <p>
        While many key pedagogical outcome variables could have been taken into
account, like conation (motivation and volition), or affection (emotions), the focus of
this work is on cognition and especially its sub-concept critical thinking. To emphasis
critical thinking seems to be a good starting point for a further examination of the
other mentioned dimensions, which are seen as highly connected. Thinking is topic of
manifold research articles (for overviews see [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]). The bottom line is, that
thinking can be classified into more or less independent categories of thinking,
including dimensions and depth of thinking. Later we will outline how these
classifications will be used to assess the thinking process activated by the MRE.
      </p>
      <p>
        The term activation is chosen to express the characteristic of events, which are
usually seen as a period of higher activity of the participants. We see the activation of
research activities and thinking skills as essential for a deeper learning experience,
compared to a mere facilitation, which tends to be more a supporting process of actors
in the background of an environment. This is in line with meta-studies emphasizing
the importance of activation on learning outcome [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Research Mash-Up environments are usually not embedded in a controlled
educational space. For example, if researchers write about nascent theories [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] on
their blogs, then these environments, try to incorporate these writings, instead of
forcing the authors to use the tool of the platform. This flexibility adds a new
complexity for researching them. While in a controlled environment all artefacts
produced by the participants are easy retrievable, this is not necessarily true for these
open environments. Methodologies, which try to investigate research environments
embedded in the real world with large-scale observations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], seem to be necessary.
      </p>
      <p>We will now outline the main components of the proposed infrastructure in which
this research is embedded. Starting with Mash-Up environments, a thinking skill
framework and an individual and collaborative event space. Finally, conclusions
highlight strengths and discuss limitations of the approach.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Mash-Up Research Environments</title>
      <p>
        Mash-ups are “a combination of pre-existing, integrated units of technology, glued
together to achieve new functionality, as opposed to creating that functionality from
scratch” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. They are seen as software applications that merge together separate
APIs and data sources [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Based on the Mash-Up idea we implemented a research infrastructure upon which
the STELLAR Mash-Up Research Environment [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] is built. It uses Elgg, an open
source networking and publishing software, as showcasing platform for bringing
together widgets and services and the legacy systems of the STELLAR partners. The
Mash-Up Research Environment consists of a set of widgets, which the users select
from a directory. The widgets are packaged according to the Widget 1.0 specification
and delivered through the Wookie widget engine. A plugin for Elgg enables to embed
the widgets into Elgg (Wordpress, Moodle, LAMS are supported out-of-the-box). See
figure 2 (right) as example of the working individual event space of the Stellar
MashUp Environment. These research environments are per se just a collection of artifacts,
with the goal to help researchers with their practice. While these ensembles of
artifacts (widget ensembles) have already its own value, the focus of this work is seen
how this Mash-Up Research Environments can activate thinking processes, especially
reflective or critical thinking. With reflection, we mean a deeper, critical thinking
about artifacts or situations/events.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3 Thinking Frameworks</title>
      <p>
        Thinking processes, as outcomes of the researchers participating in the Mash-Up
Research Environment are central for this work. Several definitions and frameworks
about thinking exist, with different notions and emphasis of thinking [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. In the
following we outline qualities of thinking and describe a framework, which seems
useful to describe thinking and its facets.
      </p>
      <p>
        Within the stream of thoughts, which the human brain consciously and
unconsciously processes, some salient thoughts catch the attention and foster a
process of critical thinking. This quality of thinking can be described as an “active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in
the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusion to which it tends”
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. Thinking in general is seen as a conscious, goal-directed process. Examples are
model building, planning of actions, remembering of past events (thinking backward),
imagining future events (thinking forward), decision-making, problem solving,
reasoning, and so forth. Conscious processes are interrelated with unconscious ones.
The latter usually are highly automated processes, which do not involve the
consciousness of the actor anymore.
      </p>
      <p>
        Moseley et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] developed an integrated framework for understanding thinking
and learning. They reviewed 35 thinking skill frameworks ranging from all embracing
frameworks to specified ones. They conclude, that the current literature on thinking
skills can be integrated in a two-factor model, consisting of “cognitive skills” and
“strategic and reflective thinking” (see fig. 2).
      </p>
      <p>These categories of thinking will help to determine which sort of thinking was
activated by an event within a Research Mash-Up Environment. The long-term goal
would be to research the correlations between widget ensembles and thinking.
Knowing these could help to construct thinking activating environments.</p>
      <p>In our research we limit ourselves to manifested representations of thinking
processes on the Web. In most cases thoughts are represented in written form,
pictures, audios or videos. Because of our usage of an open Mash-Up Research
Environment this representations could be basically found everywhere on the Web.
Our research will only take into account public available representations. To research
the question whether Mash-Up Research Environments can activate thinking skills we
propose an iterative research process starting with the following research design and
method.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4 Research Design and Method</title>
      <p>The basic idea is to set up an event space for researchers supporting by several
widgets. An event could be for example a live stream of a keynote, but also other
artifacts, like a visualization, text, etc. These widgets follow the above-mentioned
categorization of activation, account, and narrative widgets. We will then investigate
whether or not the widget ensemble activates thinking processes captured in the
account widgets and elsewhere on the Web. The account widgets can provide the
functionality either being connected to a tool, which is in control of the observer, like
the TELpedia, or being connected for example to the blog of the participating
researcher. Furthermore, and even more interesting, we will observe if the participants
write about the event outside the Mash-Up Research Environment. For this we have
to find methods to detect these writings and the discussions surrounding these. This
will lead to a set or graph structure of writings associated with the event. The outlined
framework to categorize thinking will then serve as schema to qualify the written
accounts.</p>
      <p>The goal of the first experiments is to get to know how many participants actually
get activated to write about their experiences during and after the event and what type
of thinking is involved. Questionnaires before and after the event will support this
research activity, helping to figure out what understanding the participants had before
the event, what type of tools they use to write about this event, and where to find
them. We will then compare the results of the questionnaire with the detection system
we will use to find the writings about the event to gain a better understanding to what
extent thinking processes about an event could be detected.</p>
      <p>While we already developed an individual event space in the above outlined Stellar
Mash-Up Research Environments, we are currently working on a collaborative space,
called the collaborative event space. See the mockup in the following figure (left).</p>
      <p>The collaborative event space shows as main activation widget a video (this could
be the live stream of a keynote). This is meant to be the center of attention for all
participants of the event. An additional activation widget is shown below – the social
network widget. It shows social network activity for example the Twitter posts of this
event, Blog posts, associated videos, etc. Next to this widget you can see two account
widgets. A feedback widgets, which is meant to give feedback to the keynote speaker
or to send him resources. And a collaborative writing widget, which allows all
participants to write down their thoughts. On the right side of the presentation widget,
you can see a narrative widget with reflection fostering questions. Next to it is a
widget, providing basic information about the event.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5 Discussion</title>
      <p>Thinking, especially critical thinking skills are seen as important, especially for
researchers who constantly have to rethink their own work and who need to decide on
what work is relevant for their own research. We outlined the Stellar Mash-Up
Research Environment, which provides a flexible and open infrastructure for
researchers. The Mash-Up approach allows users to use their own tools and arrange
them on a space. They can tailor their research space with functionality that is
relevant for their own research, while the collaborative research space will allow
groups of researchers to work together. One important goal of such environments is to
activate the thinking processes of researchers. Considering the variety of tools
researchers can use to express them on the Web, a methodology able to detect these
seems necessary to study the quality of thinking activated through the events. The
first step of this research is to determine if events of the Mash-Up Research
environment activate thinking processes. Afterwards, the focus will lie on finding
reliable methods to detect thinking accounts associated with an event on the Web.
Further examinations will focus on the thinking quality of these accounts. For this we
outlined a thinking framework, which will help to categorize manifested thinking
processes. In first stance a qualitative research approach will help to categorize the
thinking accounts. Using field experiments as approach to observe different widget
ensembles, we have to take into account the tradeoff between internal and external
validity, weakening internal validity in favor of external one.</p>
      <p>We proposed three types of widgets to distinct tasks of widgets. Activations
widgets represent the main point of attention for research to think upon. Account
widgets will provide an interface to express own thinking. Content generated there
could be used by the researcher as a starting point for account writings in the
environment of their choice. Narrative widgets can help to initialize the thinking
process, providing for example critical questions, standards, or further information.
These widgets can be activation points of thinking on their own. For example account
widgets could activate to think about ones own account writings or of others,
narrative widgets can activate thinking about the outlined critical questions, etc. The
research is drawn on the assumption that the accounts will be publicly available.
Researchers publish them on the Web to seek feedback from others or to report about
interesting developments. The research data is therefore limited to public accounts.</p>
      <p>We see similarities between Mash-Up Learning Environments and Mash-Up
Research Environments. Research done in either of the fields could be fruitful for the
others. A discussion about the main differences and similarities applying the approach
proposed here could encourage new research questions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Acknowledgment</title>
      <p>This work is carried out within the STELLAR Network of Excellence, which is
funded by the European Commission under the grant agreement number 231913.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wild</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ullmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scott</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <source>The STELLAR Science 2.0 Mash-Up Infrastructure. Presented at the 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies</source>
          , Sousse, Tunisia (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Halpern</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Thought and Knowledge. An Introduction to Critical Thinking</article-title>
          . L. Erlbaum
          <string-name>
            <surname>Associates</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Facione</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction</article-title>
          . Research Findings and Recommendations. (
          <year>1990</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Critical thinking. An exploration of theory and practice</article-title>
          .
          <source>Routledge</source>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moseley</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Baumfield</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Elliott</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gregson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Higgins</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Newton</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Frameworks for Thinking: A Handbook for Teaching and Learning</article-title>
          . Cambridge University Press (
          <year>2005</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hattie</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement</article-title>
          . Taylor &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Francis</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Waldrop</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Science 2.0</article-title>
          .
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Scientific</given-names>
            <surname>American</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <volume>298</volume>
          ,
          <issue>68</issue>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shneiderman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <source>COMPUTER SCIENCE: Science 2.0. Science</source>
          .
          <volume>319</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1349</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1350</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rosson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nasser</surname>
          </string-name>
          , V.:
          <article-title>CHI '08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems</article-title>
          . Presented at the , Florence, Italy (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maximilien</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ranabahu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gomadam</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>An Online Platform for Web APIs</article-title>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Service</given-names>
            <surname>Mashups</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Internet Computing, IEEE.
          <volume>12</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>32</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>43</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hartmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Doorley</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Klemmer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          : Hacking, Mashing,
          <source>Gluing: A Study of Opportunistic Design and Development</source>
          . (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wild</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ullmann</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>T.D.: Science 2</source>
          .0 Mash-Ups, http://www.stellarnet.eu/kmi/deliverables/20100120_stellar___
          <fpage>d6</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>3</lpage>
          .pdf, (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dewey</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process</article-title>
          . DC Heath Boston (
          <year>1933</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moseley</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Elliott</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gregson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Higgins</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Thinking Skills Frameworks for Use in Education and Training</article-title>
          .
          <source>British Educational Research Journal</source>
          .
          <volume>31</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>367</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>390</lpage>
          (
          <year>2005</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>