5.1.1.2. Constructivist Collaborative Learning in an Online Environment
The philosophy department at the University of Vienna is probably one of the youngest of its kind. Created in 2002, it represents an excellent example of how philosophy can make use of innovative technology and creative marketing. Impressively, the department has its own 100% open source web portal and e-learning platform. It produces a philosophical radio show, recordings of which are published, catalogued, and archived, for download in an online Audiothek (German word) together with taped lectures and presentations. This alone is unique in its professional utilisation of the internet within the philosophy discipline.

Yet, one faculty project goes even further, the project Freiraum [i] (freespace) is taking philosophy studies to another dimension. Freiraum is a MOO [ii]. The open encyclopaedia Wikipedia explains: “MOOs are network accessible, multi-user, programmable, interactive systems well-suited to the construction of text-based adventure games, conferencing systems, and other collaborative software. Their most common use, however, is as multi-participant, low-bandwidth virtual realities“. As such Prof. Hrachovec has used the text and scenario of Nitzsche’s Zaratustra to create the basis of a virtual reality. This virtual reality is now populated by students who are free to interact with the locations, actions and persons present in the virtual reality. We will not go into the description of what is possible within a MOO, but instead will analyse the effects of the use of the MOO for the learning experience of the participant.

As such, the MOO enables the participants to make a connection between the historical and present, the concrete and meta-physical, meeting both virtual and real-persons. In this scenario, participants are truly immersed in the content of study as they self-create a dynamic empirical learning experience never possible before cyberspace. Let us look at the new characteristics and activities of both professor and participant:

Naturally, this kind of learning requires new skills from the professor. His/Her role becomes threefold, while all of them have elements of the traditional character, most are radically different in the way they are conducted. The new roles are: Creator – the professor is the creator of the learning and interaction universe. This role obviously includes the traditional responsibility to select the rough learning content (text, video, etc.) but it goes much further than that. The professor not only provides the content but puts it in environmental settings (locations, people, artefacts, etc.) as such, he creates relationships between the objects, which builds a holistic whole, and he creates quests, which serve as motivators for the students. No matter how creative the professor is, once the MOO is opened, the participants will creatively destroy his setup. They will move artefacts and people, but more importantly, they will add personal comments and new ‘original’ texts, thereby creating new objects, locations, artefacts and digital Persona. What is perhaps the most difficult modification to accept for the author, is that the participants might delete some of the original environment. To ‘referee’, ‘supervise,’ and ‘administer’ all of these activities is the second role of the professor. This role has its equivalent in the traditional task of ‘herding the cats’ in the classroom, but with the exception that in virtual space, there are countless corners to hide, and generally too many possible activities to control the environment. Given the difficult logistical realities of such an elastic virtual environment, the ‘coach of a team’ seems the only feasible metaphor. The third role might be the most difficult and it is even debatable whether it is possible to perform this task solo at all. This third role is that of the evaluator. Traditionally professors assessed the performance of students by evaluating a single artefact (a test/exam) containing the codified understanding of the individual. In a MOO, performance is fractured into many interventions with various other participants, objects, etc. Additionally, a timely development is occurring as well. Therefore, a combination of self-, peer- and teacher-assessment, supplemented with a statistical overview of user activity seems the most fair and suitable solution. Reviewing all the new roles of the instructor, it appears that the workload has increased. This is a possibility but the originality and entertainment aspects of teaching have also improved.

5.1.1.3. Live Research - The Discourse on Internet Governance
It is opportune and not tautological to investigate the effect cyberspace can have on scientific work by observing how the practice and institutions dealing with the politics and regulations of cyberspace are evolving under the contributions and interventions of the academy. It is opportune for two reasons. Firstly, the academics involved in this sort of material are – in contrast to most others - very well trained in using and understanding the use of the tools employed to enable the global discursive exchange and collaboration. Second, internet governance is (in 2007) the only global discourse where the politicians have agreed to implement and exploit multi-stakeholder modalities.

The theme of Internet Governance (IG) has been tabled for the first time in a non-technology founded international context, at the first phase of the World Summit of the Information Society [iii] where a number of experts from the private sector and science met with politicians (most of whom heard of the problems and especially their technological grounding for the first time). As was to be expected, there were no political results to be negotiated as governments first had to build up at least a certain capacity and understanding of the matters being discussed. At this point (and this has not substantially changed) politicians assessed that the internet had become too important as a global (especially business) infrastructure, that it represented massive power, which subsequently meant it needed to be monitored on a political table. A rather good and innovative solution has been found by launching a multi-stakeholder working group, bringing the expertise and interests of the private sector, civil-society and myriad governments together at one table. A substantive report has been produced in a highly transparent, collaborative innovative manner [iv]. This report was discussed at the second phase of the World Summit of the Information Society. Since politicians (who are the only officially negotiating entities at such summits) bear only one part of the expertise needed it was agreed to follow the recommendations to initiate a new institution for specifically deliberating and debating IG. This agora, named the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), is a wholly new kind of institution as it is comprised of only very few coordinating and administrative staff, meant to fully embrace multi-stakeholder modalities, while doing most of its substantial work online, with one physical plenary meeting taking place once a year.

This scenario is fertile ground for the integration of academic expertise and reason into politics. But let us look at how the academics contribute and, benefit through the recognition and relevance that they develop as actors, thus benefiting from the discourse taking place. Scientist influence and contribute to the discourse through the exchange of arguments in online discussion groups, and the timely publication of articles and findings. Remember that these are real-time negotiations, only online publishing guarantees timely and global availability and that such discussions occur with a ‘neutral [v]’ peer reviewed documentation and analysis of the topical happenings. Thereby, academic expertise is immediately influencing the political subjects under negotiation, the architecture and nature of the institution formed, as well as the field of IG as a trans-disciplinary academic discipline.

As academics enter the discussions with the aura (and at least the ambition) for seeking the truth and therefore the ‘scientifically’ (thus rationally) most logical solution, their voice (theoretically) is more valuable than that of private sector groups who naturally lobby for their commercial interest as well as special interest groups who lobby one particular cause. In this context, the traditional academic value of integrity and neutrality becomes of enhanced importance. While before it was only a matter of honour to contribute the truth, now in this highly political power-play, the question of (financial) autonomy has to be reviewed from a different angle.

The whole theme of IG represents an even better example of the agora concept developed by Gibbons and Nowotney (Gibbons, 1994; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001). In fact, it goes even beyond trans-disciplinary agency, as actors (especially knowledgeable academic experts) have to act trans-professionally, changing roles between media reporter, political advisor of national committees and their (preliminary) ‘home’ in the civil-society groups. These are the work scenarios that are likely to emerge more and more in this new millennium.

----------------------------------

[i] http://freiraum.philo.at/links.html
[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOO
[iii] The concept and discourse has of course started earlier and more detailed historical documentation and analysis can be found e.g. at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=990757
[iv] In fact proceedings were reported in mailing lists and also the documents were made available online and discussed in the communities of interest.
[v] Obviously no true neutrality can be reached, but at least the attempt is made.

Users' Comments (3)

Add your comment