=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-931/editorial.pdf
|volume=Vol-931
}}
==None==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-931/editorial.pdf
Editorial: Awareness and Reflection in Technology Enhanced Learning
Considering the multitude of views on awareness and reflection distributed over a wide
range of disciplines (CSCW, psychology, educational sciences, computer science...) the
workshop’s theme is encapsulated in the following question: “What do awareness and
reflection mean in the context of TEL, and how can technologies support either?”
The ARTEL12 workshop was a direct follow-up to the 2011 EC-TEL workshops ”AR-
NETS11 (Awareness and Reflection in Learning Networks, Vol. 790 of CEUR)” and
”ALECR11 (Augmenting the Learning Experience with Collaborative Reflection)”. AR-
TEL12 pulled together research on awareness and reflection in Technology Enhanced
Learning across disciplines (psychology, educational science, computer science) and across
European TEL projects (MIRROR, ImREAL, STELLAR, MATURE, TellNET, TelMap as
co-organising projects). The main audience of ARTEL12 were researchers and practition-
ers in the field of TEL.
The objective of this workshop was i) to provide a forum for presenting and discussing re-
search on awareness and reflection in TEL and ii) to provide an interactive experience that
connects participants’ research, the co-organizing projects’ latest prototypes and models
with real end users’ learning experiences and needs regarding reflection technology.
We received 12 submissions, of which 6 were accepted as full papers. The workshop was
held on September 18, 2012. The workshop was organised in three sessions, where in the
first session papers were presented and discussed that dealt with the topic of awareness
whereas in the second session papers on reflection were presented and discussed. The fi-
nal session was an interactive one, in which the participants collaboratively brainstormed
about the connections between awareness and reflection. Moreover, the participants played
educational games and worked with simulations, which have then been discussed consid-
ering their particular impact on awareness and reflection.
Papers on Awareness
As indicated by its title, the paper “Understanding the meaning of awareness in Research
Networks” by Reinhardt et al. provides a theoretically and empirically informed explo-
ration of ’awareness’. Grounded in the analysis of 42 interviews, the authors suggest 6
forms of awareness including being aware of others’ activities, disciplinary differences in
doing research or the geographical whereabouts of peers. A convincing argument outlines
how these forms of awareness impact each other and lead to a layered model of awareness
in research networks (LMARN). Although the LMARN is primarily presented as a heuris-
tic device meant to guide the design of new tools supporting the formation of awareness,
the paper also contributes to the wider discussion regarding novel forms of measuring the
impact of scientific publications in Science 2.0 media.
Reinhardt and colleague’s work, titled “Supporting Scholarly Awareness and Researchers’
Social Interactions using PUSHPIN” examines an application designed to empower Re-
search 2.0. Taking the scientific publication as its central raison d’être, it creates a unifying
3
Papers on Reflection
layer on top of researcher’s often fragmented communication and storage structures, cre-
ating recommendations using Big Data analytics and the social graph. PUSHPIN attempts
to build a system that recommends related reading based both on what members of the so-
cial graph are also interested in but crucially additionally supported by content awareness
of the publications within the system.
Kurapati et al.’s paper “A Theoretical Framework for Shared Situational Awareness in
Complex Sociotechnical Systems” develop a framework to categorise socio-technical sys-
tems according to their purpose with respect to shared situational awareness. Socio-
technical systems may support Perception (being aware of surroundings etc.), Prescription
(being able to modify existing plans) and Participation (being able to carry out joint ac-
tions). These levels of ’maturity’ as they are called in the paper, are being discussed for
individual, team and organisational levels. The paper thus provides a way to categorise,
analyse, and understand socio-technical systems with respect to shared situational aware-
ness.
In their paper on “Exploiting awareness to facilitate the orchestration of collaborative ac-
tivities in physical spaces”, Hernandez-Leo et al. discuss how the Signal Orchestration
System (SOS) can be used in the classroom to raise awareness in dynamic group work
situations. The paper introduces the wearable technology and discusses how the adoption
of SOS leads to improved ambient awareness of the teacher.
Papers on Reflection
Krogstie and Prilla’s contribution entitled “Tool support for reflection in the workplace in
the context of reflective learning cycles” present a model for Computer Supported Reflec-
tive Learning (CSRL), created in the MIRROR project. The authors argue for a 3-step
approach to the analysis and design of supportive reflective learning in the workplace,
which is illustrated with a case of physicians in a hospital setting. They also present the
results of the evaluation of the CSRL model.
Santos, Verbert, and Duval’s paper on “Empowering students to reflect on their activity
with StepUp!” advances their interests in using Learning Analytics to build dashboards
that visualize their traces through learning material in ways that help learners and/or teach-
ers steer the learning process. Studies of two use cases reveal complex issues surrounding
implicit and explicit tracking, the influence of complexity on comprehension and goal set-
ting and evaluate time spent as an indicator of depth of study. They conclude that these
issues remain complex and recommend further work on both measuring instruments and
visualisation, proposing further deployments of visualisations that embed both individual
achievement and reflect that within the wider learning community.
In “Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies”, Tabuenca et al. report on a
study they have carried on 4 days with 37 college students, where students were reminded
to reflect about their learning via SMS, and entered their responses into a specific response-
system. The idea was that students train the “self-as-a-learner” - alongside the EU goals
of fostering life-long-learning. The study suggests, that while students are ready to reflect
4
Papers on Reflection
on their learning activities, they are not used to seeing themselves as active learners.
Thomas Ullmann’s paper on “Comparing Automatically Detected Reflective Writings in
a Large Blog Corpus” presents work done to identify reflective elements in written text
by the example of analysing a corpus from blogs. It uses sophisticated methods of text
analysis and shows how the results of this detection compares to the same task assigned to
humans. The mechanisms presented in this paper are very promising and can be valuable
means to detect and support reflection in organization as well as to identify current issue
that need to be known on the organizational level.
In their paper “The Functions of Sharing Experiences, Observations and Insights for Re-
flective Learning at Work”, Pammer, Prilla and Divitini present preliminary work that
investigates several apps in order to extract sharing functions that have impact on self-
reflective learning. The three presented apps may assist knowledge workers to improve
their work performance by critically reflecting their past activities.
Nussbaumer et al. describe in their discussion paper ”Detecting and Reflecting Learning
Activities in Personal Learning Environments” several building blocks, which have the
potential to make learners aware of their self-regulated learning. The research challenge is
to infer from measurable low-level data the high-level constructs of self-regulated learn-
ing. The goal is to obtain a mapping between key actions extracted from Contextualized
Attention Metadata (CAM) and a learning ontology, which consists of several cognitive
and metacognitive learning activities.
Degeling and Prilla report on their experiences implementing articulation support for col-
laborative reflection. A theoretical introduction to reflection at the workplace sets the scene
to the actual cases studies describing their findings. The central piece of their analysis re-
lies on the reflections carried out by physicians in a hospital. The paper demonstrates the
potential benefits of sharing experiences, especially in areas where learning is more the
product of past work experience than formal education. However, from a design point of
view, the paper also highlights the need for contextual design and frequent end-user inter-
actions, as multiple corrective actions were needed to adapt the technology support to the
conditions on site.
You can find more information about the workshop and related workshops at the ”Aware-
ness and Reflection in Technology-Enhanced Learning” group on TELeurope.eu:
http://teleurope.eu/artel
We want to use this opportunity to thank the authors for their contributions and the program
committee for their support and reviewing activity.
November 2012 Adam Moore, Viktoria Pammer
Lucia Pannese, Michael Prilla
Kamakshi Rajagopal, Wolfgang Reinhardt
Thomas D. Ullmann, Christian Voigt
5
Organization Committee
Organization Committee
Adam Moore, Trinity College Dublin (Ireland), @adam moore
Viktoria Pammer, Know Center (Austria), @contextgroupkc
Lucia Pannese, imaginary (Italy), @lpannese
Michael Prilla, University of Bochum (Germany)
Kamakshi Rajagopal, Open Universiteit (Netherlands), @krajagopal
Wolfgang Reinhardt, University of Paderborn (Germany), @wollepb
Thomas Ullmann, The Open University (UK), @thomasullmann
Christian Voigt, Centre for Social Innovation (Germany), @chrvoigt
Figure 1: Parts of the organizing committee of the #ARTEL12 workshop (from the left to
the right: Thomas Ullmann, Michael Prilla, Wolfgang Reinhardt, Viktoria Pammer, Lucia
Pannese, Adam Moore)
6
Program Committee
Program Committee
Eileen O’Donnell, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Martin Wolpers, Fit Fraunhofer Society, Germany.
Daniel Wessel, Knowledge Media Research Center, Germany.
Angela Fessl, Know-Center, Austria.
Carsten Ullrich, Jiao Tong University, China.
Victoria Macarthur, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Peter Sloep, Open University, Netherlands.
Rebecca Ferguson, The Open University, United Kingdom.
Kristin Knipfer, Technische Universität München, Germany.
Milos Kravcik, RWTH Aachen, Germany.
Elizabeth FitzGerald, The Open University, United Kingdom.
Fridolin Wild, The Open University, United Kingdom.
Rory Sie, Celstec, Netherlands.
7
Supporting FP7 Projects
Supporting FP7 Projects
http://stellarnet.eu
http://www.mirror-project.eu
http://www.imreal-project.eu
http://telmap.org/
http://www.tellnet.eun.org
http://mature-ip.eu
8