View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
brought to you by
CORE
provided by New Bulgarian University Scholar Electronic Repository
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 10TH ANNUAL
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND EDUCATION IN
COMPUTER SCIENCE 2014
IEEE Sponsor
With financial support of the Central Strategic Development
Found of NBU
04 – 07 July 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
Chairmen: Ivan Landjev (Bulgaria), Rumen Stainov (Germany) and
Lou Chitkushev (USA)
General Secretaries: Petya Assenova (Bulgaria), Vijay Kanabar (USA)
Authors and Co-authors (incl. participants)
Andonov, Philip, Bulgaria
Laroussi, Mona, Tunisia
Atanasov, Dimitar, Bulgaria
Manev, Krassimir, Bulgaria
Bantchev, Boyko, Bulgaria
Maneva, Neli, Bulgaria
Belperchinov, Vladimir, Bulgaria
Milev, Dimo, Bulgaria
Boev, Stoyan, Bulgaria
Bondarenko, Eduard, Ukraine
Ocoleanu, Constantin Florian,
Romania
Boyer, Jason, USA
Pape, Christian, Germany
Branzov, Todor, Bulgaria
Pavlov, Pavel, Bulgaria
Braude, Eric, USA
Nisheva-Pavlova, Maria, Bulgaria
Brown, Kelli, USA
Ramesh, Manu, USA
Chaaboundi, Mariem, Tunisia
Seifert, Christoph, Germany
Chitkushev, Lou, USA
Shahinyan, Kristiyan, Bulgaria
Demirova, Malina, Bulgaria
Sharkov, Georgy, Bulgaria
Dimitrov, Delyan, Bulgaria
Simoff, Simeon, Australia
Donchev, Ivaylo, Bulgaria
Slavova, Velina, Bulgaria
Dragostinov, Dimitar, Bulgaria
Stainov, Rumen, Germany
Duridanov, Ludmil, Bulgaria
Stambolieva, Maria, Bulgaria
Feleke, Nebiyu, USA
Staynov, Petko, Bulgaria
Goleva, Rossitsa, Bulgaria
Sujan, Vinaya, USA
Gueorguiev, Ivaylo, Bulgaria
Temkin, Anatoly, USA
Gueorguiev, Vesselin, Bulgaria
Todorova, Emilia, Bulgaria
Haralambiev, Haralambi, Bulgaria
Tomov, Latchezar, Bulgaria
Hinkov, Bojidar, Bulgaria
Trifonov, Trifon, Bulgaria
Hussain, Tauqeer, USA
Varbanov, Pavel, Bulgaria
Ivanov, Dimitar, Bulgaria
Vodenska, Irena, USA
Ivanov, Virginia, Romania
Wu, Kurt, USA
Ivanova, Valentina, Bulgaria
Yas’ko, Mykola, Ukraine
Kaloyanova, Kalinka, Bulgaria
Zaidi, Syed Ali Raza, USA
Kanabar, Vijay, USA
Zhang, Yuting, USA
Kirov, Nikolay, Bulgaria
Zlateva, Tanya, USA
Krastev, Evgeniy, Bulgaria
Zlatev, Vladimir, USA
Landjev, Ivan, Bulgaria
Editors: Rumen Stainov, Petya Assenova, Vijay Kanabar, Ivan Christov
Copyright © 2014
University of Applied Sciences Fulda
35 Marquad Str.,
36039 Fulda,
Germany
New Bulgarian University
21 Montevideo Str.,
1618 Sofia,
Bulgaria
Boston University, MET
808 Commonwealth Avenue,
02215 Boston,
USA
ISSN 1313-8624
Schedule
Friday, July 4th
13:00
REGISTRATION
14:15
OPENING by Ivan Landjev
14:30
Analytics
Dashboard
Parameters
for
Digital
Learning
Management Systems, Lou Chitkushev, Tanya Zlateva, Irena
Vodenska, Vladimir Zlatev (USA)…………………………….....001
14:50
A Business Analytics Shell for Teaching Corporate Decision
Making, Vladimir Zlatev (USA)…………………………..………003
15:10
(remote) Creating Verifiable Colliding PDF Signatures, Anatoly
Temkin, Jason Boyer, Kelli Brown, Manu Ramesh, Kurt Wu
(USA)……………………………………………………………….005
15:30
(remote) Aspects of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case
of Edx and its effects, Syed Ali Raza Zaidi (USA)…………….015
15:50
(remote) Using the Dafny Verification System in an "Introduction
to Algorithms" Class: A Preliminary Report, Eric Braude
(USA)……………………………………………………………….023
16:10
COFFEE BREAK
16:30
An approach to structural analysis of programs, Boyko Bantchev
(BG)…………………………………………………………………031
16:50
Homogeneous Arcs in Projective Hjelmslev Geometries and a
Generalization of a Theorem, Bonisoli, Stoyan Boev, Ivan
Landjev (BG)………………………………………………………041
17:10
(remote) Significance of Assumptions in Teaching Conceptual
Modeling, Tauqeer Hussain (USA)………………………….…..047
17:30
Didactics of teaching networking courses with blended learning
aspects, Christoph Seifert, Christian Pape (D)………………...063
17:50
Practical aspects of loop semantics recovery, Trifon Trifonov
(BG)…………………………………………………………………073
18:10
Some Improvements of the Open Text Summarizer Algorithm
Using Heuristics, Philip Andonov, Velina Slavova (BG)………093
19: 45 SOCIAL EVENT dedicated to the US Independence Day.
Saturday, July 5
th
09:00
SITE SEENG
13:00
LUNCH
14.10
Contact resistance measurement using LabVIEW and NI PCI
6221, Constantin Florin Ocoleanu, Virginia Ivanov……………103
14:30
Managing industrial software projects In master education,
Kalinka Kalayanova (BG)………………………………………...111
14:50
A test system for checking and evaluation the students'
programming knowledge, Nikolay Kirov (BG)………………….125
15:10
Developing a Curriculum framework for Project Management:
Architecture, Competencies, and Educational Approaches, Vijay
Kanabar (USA)…………………………………………………….135
15:30
Security
Analysis
of
Finance
and
Healthcare
Android
Applications, Nebiyu Feleke, Yuting Zhang, Lou Chitkushev
(USA)……………………………………………………………….145
15:50
COFFEE BREAK
16:10
Reliable Transmission over Disruptive Cloud Using Peer Port,
Rossitsa Goleva (BG), Rumen Stainov (D), Malina Demirova
(BG)…………………………………………………………………153
16:30
Identifying Software Design Patterns by Adaptive Dictionary
Coding, Krasimir Manev, Neli Maneva (BG)…………………...167
16:50
Semantic correctness of a set of Business processes, Kristiyan
Shahinyan , Evgeniy Krastev (BG)……………………………...183
17:10
(remote) An Exploration of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
Guidelines for Designing Web-Based Distance Education
Environments, Vinaya Sujan (USA/India)………………………199
20:00
OFFICIAL DINNER
Sunday, July 6th
08:30
TRIP TO Aladja Monastry (by cars)
13:00
LUNCH
14:10
Abstraction of Framework for Business Rules Extraction, Delyan
Dimitrov, Dimitar Ivanov, Haralambi Haralambiev, Neli Maneva
(BG)…………………………………………………………………215
14:30
(remote) Business Rules Extraction within a Scrum Development
Process, Todor Branzov, Neli Maneva (BG)……..…………….233
14:50
(remote) BASAR – A bank of blended-learning scenarios in
French, Petko Staynov (BG), Mona Laroussi (Tunis)…………247
15:10 (remote) The NBU Linguist’s Workbench, Maria Stambolieva,
Dimitar Dragostinov (BG)………………………………………...259
15:30
Evaluation of ICT Curricula using European e-Competence
George
Framework,
Sharkov,
Petya
Asenova,
Ivaylo
Gueorguiev, Valentina Ivanova, Pavel Varbanov (BG)……….267
15:50
(remote) Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning –
“Spontaneous protocol”, Ludmil Duridanov (NBU), Simeon
Simoff (UWS)………………………………………………………287
16:10
COFFEE BREAK
16:30
Towards e-Leadership M.Sc. Program Curricula", Valentina
Ivanova, Latchezar Tomov (BG)………………………………...307
16:50
Error Handling Strategies for Sensitive Applications: From
Research Project To Industrial Application, Vesselin Evgueniev
Gueorguiev (BG)…………………………………………………..319
17:10
(remote) Representation and Use of Conceptual Knowledge in
Semantic Digital Library Systems, Maria Nisheva-Pavlova, Pavel
Pavlov (BG)………………………………………………………..335
17:30
Developing a Project for Building a System Supporting
Qualitative Data Analysis, Emilia Todorova, Dimo Milev, Ivaylo
Donchev (BG)…………………………………………….............351
17:50
Heterogeneous Computing for Solving System of the Linear
Equations
by
the
Conjugate
Gradient
Method,
Eduard
Bondarenko (UA)………………………………………………….363
18:10
(remote) Statistical behavioral intrusion, detection, Vladimir
Belperchinov, Dimitar Atanasov (BG)…………………………..373
19:30
SOCIAL EVENT
Monday, July 7
9:00
th
Computer-Assisted Pseudo-Coloring Method Of Lung X-rays,
Desislava
Valentinova
Georgieva,
Vesselin
Evgueniev
Gueorguiev (BG)…………………………………………………..381
09:20
(remote) Teaching good practices in software engineering by
counterexamples,
Valentina
Ivanova,
Latchezar
P.Tomov
(BG)…………………………………………………………………397
09:40
(remote) Multimodal Sentiments Analyses of Financial News – a
project outline, Velina Slavova (BG), Bojidar Hinkov (BG).…..407
10:00
COFFEE BREAK
10:30
PANEL DISCUSSION
11:00
CLOSING SESSION
13:00
LUNCH
CSECS 2014, pp. 001 - 020
The 10th Annual International Conference on
Computer Science and Education in Computer Science,
July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
DISRUPTIVE PRACTICES OF PARTICIPATORY
LEARNING
Ludmil DURIDANOV, Simeon SIMOFF
Abstract: In the last decade students of the so-called App generation
committed a “positive disruption” on existing practices of cognitive experience
and the ways to access knowledge. Developing a natural feeling of reality
through a permanent online presence they are using a variety of web tools and
mobile apps in a NETWORK SOCIETY (under construction). In the introduction we
show how a paradigm shift from INSTRUCTOR-CENTERED TEACHING to a STUDENTBASED PARTICIPATORY LEARNING occurs within a variety of “disruptive practices”
imposed by the requirements of global market interaction on education models.
In this paper we focus especially on how DISRUPTIVE EXPERIENCE of so-called
DIGITAL NATIVES could be followed within dynamic in-class scenarios. A social
and cognitive phenomenon of “disrupting ourselves” will be approached here in
the following ways. On the one side it highlights radical changes of natural
communication of the App generation and their impact on educational models.
On the other side it emphasizes how educators could simulate a close-tomarket professional ambience to follow available SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOLS of
multichannel communication. The learning advantage extracted by instructor’s
SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOL (mostly as a DIGITAL IMMIGRANT) evolves student
requirements (mostly as a DIGITAL NATIVE) on demand and is based on
responding to nonverbal signals of so-called DIGITAL NATIVES. This way we have
a SPONTANEOUS SETTING of disruptive practices within participatory learning:
FIRST, instructor (mostly a DIGITAL IMMIGRANT) acknowledges an appropriate
place and time to various roles interacting with DIGITAL NATIVES by using a
287
2
Duridanov, Simoff
as a communication instrument to respond to “secret
signals” of students body language in-class and to introduce “theatre scenarios”
within synchronous (face-to-face one-to-many and one-to-one, and distanced)
and asynchronous (distanced) interaction.
SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOL
SECOND, instructor “disrupts” one’s own cognitive experience resp. know-how
and reshapes segments of knowledge into SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS of attractive
learning procedures which evolve DIGITAL NATIVES in the dynamic following of a
SPONTANEOUS IN-CLASS PROTOCOL.
THIRD, educator “disrupts” both instructor and student in-class roles where the
acknowledged shift from teaching to learning (since 1995) transforms
educational interaction between instructors and students from ONE-TO-MANY to
ONE-TO-ONE and/or MANY-TO-MANY in face-to-face and distanced communication
scenarios. The instructor uses a SEDUCTIVE STRATEGY to engage students in
playing instructor’s roles within a game of interchangeable teaching and
learning.
Keywords: Participatory Learning, Body Language, Digital Natives, Digital
Immigrants, Web 2.0, Network Society, Spontaneous Protocol.
ACM Classification Keywords:
Management, Performance
Communications,
Human
Factors,
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
288
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
3
Introduction
Hereby we have to introduce the notion of “positive disruption” in
business and how it imposes a significant impact on simulating
professional ambience within participatory practices of learning.
“Disruption” and “disruptive” are traditionally terms having a negative
connotation pointing to incriminated practices of “disruptive subjects”
(Yngvesson, 1993). In the last decades a various “positive disruption”
practices changed the negative image of this notion. Globalized
technological trends brought a variety of “disruptive businesses” as
HYBRID SOLUTION MODELS causing regulatory changes, new kind of
competition, new client demands and collaborative trends even in a
protected industry of legal practices in the UK changed its professional
shape. The shift of already established “traditional” businesses to HYBRID
BUSINESS MODELS with affordable prices using the same resources offthe-shelf was highlighted as a HIGH-IMPACT INNOVATIVE PRINCIPLE by
Clayton Christensen (Christensen, 1997; Danneels, 2004) focused on
emerging social interaction patterns with a vision supported by the
conceptual metaphor of “disruptive technology”, fine-tuned 2003 as
“disruptive innovation” (Christensen/Raynor, 2003) within business
interaction models. The positive accent here is on the dynamic principle
of professional performance, not a “universal pattern” of rules how to
interact within typical situations, because market behavior alters rapidly
in its social relevance. The social action “to disrupt” traditional patterns
turns out of the shadows of its semantic negativity and becomes a “best
practice” flagged even on global technological forums although its
semantic meaning remains as a whole highly ambivalent (Disrupt Europe,
2013).
289
4
Duridanov, Simoff
Christensen’s interdisciplinary vision is followed by experienced
specialists in his collaborative efforts to find practical solutions within a
series of “disruptive cases” since 1997. Theoretically his concept makes
swinging the semantic pendulum without having a clear definition of what
is a “disruptive innovation”. In his latest case study on health care and
hospital infrastructure the semantic emphasis of “disruptive innovation” is
laid merely onto the aspect of prescriptive behavior and concrete
DISRUPTIVE SOLUTIONS (Christensen/Raynor, 2003 : 39). So, the weak
point in his concept is the lack of clear inherent relation between the
UNIVERSAL DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE he defines here as a “conversion of
complex intuitive processes into simple, rules-based work” which leads
“from expensive, highly trained experts to less costly technicians” and its
concrete application as DISRUPTIVE SOLUTIONS. He tries to persuade us in
the “difficult marriage” of a visionary entrepreneurship and a clear cut
definition of a dynamic principle.
Our work is to evaluate shortly his know-how for our educational purpose
in the practical searching of DISRUPTIVE SOLUTIONS, because innovator’s
prescriptions could be valid for already established trends. Christensen
shows in his reflective behavior actually the same educational dilemma
we have. Teaching practices within school and university curricula show
a weak connection of universally modelled thinking in concrete situations
of the past. Instructors show actually how the future should be fostered
on the basis of past scientific experience and mirror in their in-class
behavior the Industrial Age of past times. Christensen has the merit to
drop the attention how entrepreneur’s vision followed by a dynamic
principle could work in academic curricula under the pressure of market
patterns of “positive disruption”. In the last two case studies (Christensen/
Grossmann/Hwang, 2008; Christensen/Eyring, 2011) he advances the
shaping of an innovative university where academic curricula of
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
290
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
5
university programs anticipate market demands caused by active
participation of new information and communication technologies.
The theoretical framework of our reflections on how a traditional
RESPONSIVE TEACHING MODEL turns into “disruptive practices” of
participatory learning will use an evaluated framework of the developing
information society, defined in terms of a network society (Castells,
1996),. In the information society of the last decade social application of
information technologies evolves social mechanisms based on web 2.0
“economics” and “social politics” wherein new social media “disrupt”
everyday life communication procedures. If we analyze the multichannel
procedures precisely we can qualify them as a “disruptive living” within a
network society. Some of the main trends of a NETWORK SOCIETY are
extensively elaborated by Manuel Castells in a fundamental study
(Castells, 1996) as well as by French communication theorist, Jean
Baudrillard (Baudrillard, 1994 : 80) how the social implosion of the new
media technologically “disrupts” meaning and significance through
pervasive circulation and information sharing. We will not describe in
detail the paradox how information “devours” its own content (meaning
and significance), but will use it as a relevant benchmark of an
EDUCATIONAL CONNECT to the APP GENERATION and to support them in
their own pace of life.
In our eyes instructor’s job is to integrate the social and psychological
skills of Digital Natives already available within web 2.0 multichannel
interaction where information is exhaustively “drained” by on-stage
communication and the content becomes a phantom window we enter
anew via mobile sharing. Considering media theorists Hans-Magnus
Enzensberger (Enzensberger, 1970) and Jean Baudrillard (Baudrillard,
1985 : 577-89; 1988 : 207) we construct an approach to interact
successfully with students extracted and updated during EVERYDAY
291
6
Duridanov, Simoff
where media participation and perception
causes proactive interaction of all participants. The specific point here is
that passive participants, mostly students become proactive through
NATURAL FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION procedures.
COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES
The main focus of our paper is not how Big Data selection succeeds in
various ways to create valuable standards of NATURAL COMMUNICATION
as emphasized by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier
(Mayer-Schönberger/Cukier, 2013 : 32-33). The double action of
DISRUPTING KNOWLEDGE and DISRUPTING OURSELVES requires a new
interaction model where SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOL of responsive teaching
and learning behavior alerts the solution to be enacted. DISRUPTING
OURSELVES refers to a visionary term of participatory learning theorist,
Randy Bass (Bass, 2012), but not used appropriately to find dynamical
educational scenarios as disruptive solutions. His EDUCATIONAL
FRAMEWORK is merely an interactive platform within PARADIGM SHIFTING
from INSTRUCTOR-CENTERED TEACHING to STUDENT-CENTERED
PARTICIPATORY LEARNING. For Randy Bass (Bass, 2012 : 24) “disrupting
ourselves” means to embrace an UNDERGRADUATE TRANSITION MODEL
from teaching to learning, announced 1997 by Robert Barr and John
Tagg (Barr/Tagg, 1997) and to highlight how various students’ learning
areas of PARTICIPATORY CULTURE exercise pressure on the FORMAL
CURRICULUM and create an EDUCATIONAL NETWORK of co-instructors
(including elements of INFORMAL LEARNING, PARTICIPATORY CULTURE,
HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES and EXPERIENTIAL CO-CURRICULUM). The main
focus of dynamic participatory interaction on-work resp. on-campus is on
awaking SERENDIPITY as highlighted by German philosopher David
Richard Precht (Precht 2013) in the discussion on necessary school
changes with neurobiologist Gerald Hüther (Precht/Hüther, 2012).
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
292
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
7
In the following we consider DISRUPTIVE FRAMEWORKS as social
constraints based on successful stories, but focus on ADVANCING
DISRUPTION PROCEDURES where innovator’s accumulated knowledge is
taken as a cognitive basis to be disrupted. If we take Christensen’s
educational dilemma (“disrupting class”) facing an essential dilemma to
implement a new framework into the available infrastructure. He points in
his last book (Christensen/Eyring, 2011) how real time communications
engage Harvard students and explores educational prospects of an
university of the future. Infrastructural problems could be easy solved if
we apply DYNAMIC KEY SOLUTIONS not building of “static platforms”; they
are flexible, intuitively perceived and extracted from our actual
experience of rapid and intense IMMERSIVE SOCIAL NETWORKING of Digital
Natives and applicable to Digital Immigrants as well. The curriculum we
handle is to be regarded on the one side as a CONSTRUCTION IN
PROGRESS, on the other hand as a COGNITIVE MATRIX with several
templates extracted from a student ambiance in everyday life on mobile
Apps. In our DISRUPTIVE PRACTICES experimental scenarios enhance
innovator’s skills stressed by Hal Gregersen and Clayton Christensen as
DISCOVERY SKILLS - ASSOCIATING, QUESTIONING, OBSERVING,
NETWORKING and EXPERIMENTING – as well. Based on the experience of
500 successful companies, they serve as “flags” of dynamic interaction
wherein our “dynamic interfaces” (such as body language reading and
responsive teaching) have to be implemented as a so-called “soft skills
technology”.
What we call SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOL refers to the theoretical
framework of Gestalt psychologists and is to be applied in our case like a
SWITCH that changes spontaneously the “disrupted roles” played by a
teaching mediator and the “disrupted” knowledge segments.
Christensen’s vision in itself is apparently not a static one, but it is trying
to cover all three levels of communication – VISION, DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE
and APPLIED SOLUTIONS. There is no coherent semantic relation between
293
8
Duridanov, Simoff
the first two and the last one. Therefore we can understand it better
“horizontally” as a set of benchmarks (not universal Apps) and to apply it
cautiously at any particular situation. Christensen’s historical analysis of
Harvard University could formalize the extracted “DNA profile” and we
run the risk hereafter to apply his principles as formalized guidelines of
an education procedure. This was already experienced by various
Waldorf schools in Germany and Switzerland since the 50ies extracted
from Steiner’s creative teaching (Steiner, 1995). If we refer to them as
templates of successful DISRUPTIVE CASES we could prove nothing else,
but the stroke of success that nearly does not repeat. An interesting
market example is the remake experiment of Silicon Valley in an
ECONOMIC CLUSTER, near Dresden with recently founded chip factories in
the last decade. Therefore we would like to recall the visionary criticism
of Maurice Joly (Joly, 1935a; 1935b) disclosing the dangers how SOFT
SKILLS TO WIN influence people and how formalized principles could turn
interaction into instruments of power. It is advisable to take his criticism
as a “lens” to better read Christensen’s “DNA skills” concerning
achievement of practical solutions and not as a copy-paste procedure.
Maurice Joly’s disclosure could be regarded as an anticipated idea of
socially relevant digital revolution and how this happens discreetly in a
globalized world to acquire a societal configuration is in alignment with
Christensen’s visionary mind to radically transform things through
“changing the DNA of higher education from inside out”.
Multilevel Disruption – Participatory Practices
Since 2010 we follow a PARTICIPATORY VISION how to practice multilevel
disruption within dominant instructor models of education at NBU Sofia
and UWS Sydney.
We consider the learning paradigm of Clayton Christensen, Barr & Tagg
and Randy Bass as a first degree “positive disruption” and our disruptive
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
294
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
9
practices as a second degree. Taking a student-centered learning as a
framework we “disrupt” the in-class interaction by a spontaneous
protocol (Spontanprotokoll) responding to students nonverbal “secret
signals”. The notion of SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOL differs from the notion
Gestalt psychologists and therapists like Ulrich Sollmann use in their
approach (Sollmann, 2013 : 113-114). In our eyes it is a communication
instrument or dynamic IN-CLASS INTERFACE to activate various instructor’s
roles. Soft skills to win is a valuable TEACHING INSTRUMENT which is
about to be introduced in a general curriculum as a “foreign language” at
high schools and universities. That way nonverbal multichannel
interaction is to be acquired and practiced back in seminal discussions
as a “double-bind” (Bateson, 1978) instrument for developing real time
solutions.
We started 2010 our COLLABORATIVE WORK on a project-based
PARTICIPATORY MODEL of education wherein TWO CLUSTERS of NBU Sofia
and UWS Sydney dynamically interact. We followed the 1995 concept of
Robert Barr and John Tagg as a PLATFORM, slightly modified by Randy
Bass and perform a series of MULTILEVEL DIDACTIC DISRUPTIONS on the
formal curriculum. This way we develop a DYNAMIC EDUCATIONAL
PLATFORM with a series of interrelated participatory practices / scenarios
on two main levels (INSTRUCTOR’S BEHAVIOR and COGNITIVE EXPERIENCE):
1. On the INSTRUCTOR’S BEHAVIOR level the TEACHING SUBJECT turns
into a KNOWLEDGE MEDIATOR spontaneously switching to various ONSTAGE SCENARIOS and ROLES responding to student’s behavioral inclass changes.
2. On the cognitive experience level the MEDIATOR “DISRUPTS”
SEGMENTS OF fundamental knowledge BY
295
10
Duridanov, Simoff
a. Extracting constraints
i. From the pool
experience
of
instructor’s
knowledge
as well as
ii. From recently elaborated applied knowledge in
the knowledge economy
and
b. Assembling constraints by playing associative game
strategies based on the Google search principle.
c. On the instructor’s behavior level the teaching subject turns
into a KNOWLEDGE MEDIATOR spontaneously SWITCHING to
various on-stage scenarios and roles responding to
behavioral in-class changes of students.
Randy Bass’s visionary concept generated a shift from traditional
learning platform under the pressure of participatory culture, high-impact
practices and informal learning to a re-centered instruction paradigm.
Our major is not focused on infrastructural changes and formalizing
educational constraints, but to differentiate ICT soft strategies a mediator
applies in face-to-face in-class interaction. Two interrelated aspects have
to be especially highlighted in our concept. Instructor preserves
traditionally given educational infrastructure as a platform and “disrupts”
the framework via dynamic game in-class scenarios enhancing mobile
communications as well:
1. On the personal identity level a powerful didactic instrument is
to be applied – simply called natural communication. The
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
296
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
11
instructor creates a connect to the audience where associative
game strategies evolve a naturally shared corridor of life flow.
2. On the cognitive experience level teaching is to be “disrupted”
into differentiated echelons within conscious and subconscious
game interaction. The “serious game of life” as natural
communication is the instrument as well the shared basis within
a dynamically “animated” responsive model of PARTICIPATORY
LEARNING
where technological framing of mobile
communications is an integral part.
The proposed disruptive solution could be described as follows. The
instructor “disrupts oneself” using two kinds of associative game
techniques to evolve others – which by following Baudrillard’s media
expertise (Baudrillard, 1994) based on Kierkegaard’s theoretical
essentials in his “Diary of the Seducer” – are defined as
A seductive technique to naturally communicate creates a
diminishing tension between instructor and students. It engages
participants to follow the question-and-answer learning
procedure wherein they become proactive partners of the
“game”, because they feel attracted to play the role of game
changers; and
An interpretative technique where the tension of associatively
following question-and-answer scenario discloses step by step
the “secrets of knowledge”.
Face-to-face interaction within the flow of natural communication is the
core of our disruptive practices. Instructor creates a strong connect to the
audience during the first minutes of a lecture warming up the dynamics
of a verbally and nonverbally synchronized shared space. The gained
297
12
Duridanov, Simoff
shared space is supported by face-to-face interaction and social
networking channels.
The disruptive strategy is to be stressed first in the application of a
spontaneous protocol responding to students nonverbal behavior that
causes instructor’s switch to various theater roles from one-to-many to
one-to-one as an educational “fitness program” within associatively
played question-and-answer games. The crucial point to disrupt
ourselves as instructors is based on a communication tool defined
through the centuries as breaking the stage illusion. It is simply conveyed
as a switch from seductive to interpretative technique disclosing the
“secrets of knowledge” as a directly shared cognitive experience with the
public. On the instructor’s level one goes off the stage as a knowledge
mediator and switches from a playing actor to a confident commentator
selecting from a variety of cognitive levels and identity roles. Here is
merely one more disruptive switch on the instructor’s behavior level.
The instructor has a choice to follow the game either by playing a role
with a complete emotional involvement or by inventing a sceptic distance
both to the role and to the “knowledge secrets” to be disclosed. These
two ways to interact with each other are a cornerstone to evolve DIGITAL
NATIVES and DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS as collaborating scenarists and
participants to invent and disclose “knowledge secrets”.
An emotional identification of instructor with the role appeals to the heart
and creates an euphoric connect and a sensible modality to
communicate indirectly the disclosed knowledge through a dramatic
procedure. A sceptic distance challenges the position of anyone from the
audience. As a final effect the students are attracted emotionally to
proactively participate growing into the role of co-instructors.
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
298
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
13
The CORE of our multichannel interaction system is EXTENDED with
ONLINE OPEN OFFICE HOURS as an integral part of the hybrid shared space
between instructor (mostly being a Digital Immigrant) and students
(mostly being Digital Natives). The instructor interacts synchronously and
asynchronously with students consulting them off- and on-campus via
short message communication and video conferencing (on Google Drive,
Facebook, LinkedIn, Skype, YouTube, Viber and WhatsApp). The online
participatory practice mirrors the Cambridge open door educators’
availability on-campus.
The ONLINE OFF- AND ON-CAMPUS as a “second home” is hereby an
integral part of a learning paradigm initiated by students who are
considered not as consulted or tested passive participants, but as coactors creating and supporting a shared space. Here is the first relevant
difference to Randy Bass’ designed model where a network of oncampus instructors appears as an extended infrastructure. A major
advantage of our on- and offline disruptive practice is that the instructor
follows the students rhythm of learning ambiance based on NATURAL
COMMUNICATION. Interacting educators appear here as online
respondents on demand following a PARENTAL AID model (“Mom, can I
ask you a question right now?”). The point here is to develop a kind of
“augmented reality” wherein information is not exclusively mediated inclass.
Following an extracurricular participatory model of high-impact market
trends (from the world outside) leads here to an informal learning
procedure where emotional involvement prevails and subconsciously
facilitates the participants’ assessment of professional knowledge. As
already emphasized the core of our educational paradigm is designed by
natural communication within an off- and online “support center” wherein
the instructor interacts “on the beat” with his audience. He builds an
299
14
Duridanov, Simoff
associative game wherein “knowledge secrets” are to be disclosed in
small steps. Step-by-step interaction lends a helping hand to the
students to following from already known to the knowledge to be learned.
The created educational center of the “disrupted curriculum” is mostly
based on face-to-face interaction where virtual open office hours are
contaminated by the natural learning procedure of the students.
Another integral part of our DISRUPTIVE SCENARIOS of FACE-TO-FACE
INTERACTION during seminal discussions is the introduction of an
audiovisual SECOND INSTRUCTOR. DISRUPTING OURSELVES means hereby
to “disrupt” hierarchical positions of instructors and assemble
KNOWLEDGE and BEHAVIOR segments within a COLLABORATIVE
PROCEDURE of critical assessment considering integration of a SECOND
INSTRUCTOR as OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE and KNOWLEDGE PRESENTER. A
“double bind” behavior of instructor and student roles is accompanied by
a “double impact” of CRITICALLY ASSESSED KNOWLEDGE. Reciprocal
assessment (by the terms of Gestalt psychology) is the emission of
GESTALTEN that occurs in a certain hierarchy of initiated NATURAL
COMMUNICATION as KNOWLEDGE INCENTIVE and SUPPORT CENTER
between students (as proactive participants) and the TWO INSTRUCTORS.
Students make their choice to play as GAME CHANGERS or continue to
interact as PASSIVE PARTICIPANTS receiving the emitted knowledge from
“both instructors”. The initiated DISRUPTION PRACTICE allows the instructor
to change his own roles (PROACTIVE, MEDIUM ACTIVE or “PASSIVE”
mediator). By initiating our EDUCATIONAL CENTER we agree with Randy
Bass (Bass p.24) that a “disruptive startup” of an educational platform
occurs under pressure of four factors on the formal curriculum:
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
300
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
15
The RESPONSIVE INTERACTION MODEL we develop since 2011 is based
(but not centered) on MULTICHANNEL FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION as a
SPONTANEOUS PROTOCOL resuming the NATURAL EXTRACURRICULAR
COMMUNICATION for
in-class participatory learning purposes
complemented by all social channels wherein Digital Natives play various
web roles of ACTIVE MEDIATORS supported by “TWO INSTRUCTORS” inclass. We have an OPEN GATEWAY for a variety of learning scenarios
depending on the incentives and the responsive capacity of our ACTIVE
IN-CLASS MEDIATORS involved in chat discussions or file sharing. Both
instructors and students turn into PEER-TO-PEER COMMENTATORS or
INSTANT MESSAGING GAME PLAYERS where web 2.0 participatory culture
dominates the LEARNING PARADIGM. Digital Immigrants believe that
Students live a “SECOND LIFE” online and search for a short cut to
NATURALLY COMMUNICATE with each other when they navigate through
the “disrupted segments” of knowledge sharing them with each other or
with a third party.
In our eyes here should be paid attention to a relevant societal
difference. DIGITAL NATIVES, i.e. mostly our students, live their “FIRST
LIVE” online and DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS (mostly being instructors) navigate
online in an extended model of “SECOND LIFE”. Social networking is a
powerful COMMUNICATION INSTRUMENT that “disrupts” even the usual elearning scenarios within the former framework defined as an
301
16
Duridanov, Simoff
INFORMATION SOCIETY.
Randy Bass refers to Henry Jenkins position of
participatory education (Jenkins, 2009 : 30) and considers it as a part of a
SERIOUS CURRICULUM which makes appear collaborative aspects of a
team-based learning within a flexible EDUCATIONAL PLATFORM:
Conclusion
The variety of instructors in the LEARNING PARADIGM of Randy Bass
(p.30) points out to a static picture (Fig. 3) “disrupted” in formalized
procedures of On-Campus infrastructure. Our DISRUPTIVE MODEL is
based on a DYNAMIC INTERFACE starting with a DISRUPTIVE TEXTBOOK as a
selection of audiovisual materials playing the role of a SECOND
INSTRUCTOR (or a SECOND CENTER in the terms of Randy Bass). The
second major point is the provoking of proactive emotional involvement
within in-class discussions transforming students in MEDIO- and PROACTIVE KNOWLEDGE MEDIATORS playing various roles of INSTRUCTORS in
associative question-and-answer scenarios. Hereby the RESPONSIVE
EDUCATIONAL PARADIGM is dynamically anchored in NATURAL
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
302
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
17
which evolve others as a high-end “disruptive
model” of participatory learning in-class, complemented and “disrupted”
by ON- and OFF-CAMPUS SOCIAL NETWORKING. What we describe herewith
seems not to be formalized by game rules of “traditional education” till
now. Gaining a flexibility of everyday life it has the advantage to be
activated in every educational platform, affordable with its decentralized,
low-cost resources (most of them wearable by the students). The biggest
failure of educational analyses is not to consider SOCIAL NETWORKING as
a dominant form of NATURAL COMMUNICATION for the next generation.
Following Baudrillard’s anticipation of social media subliminal impact
within interchangeable SEDUCTIVE and INTERPRETATIVE techniques of
NATURAL COMMUNICATION we could resume our presentation with his
significant key words: “Where the un-signified of seduction circulates,
flows beneath words and meaning, faster than meaning: it affects you
before utterances reach you” (Baudrillard, 1985 : 159).
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
A major dilemma of ICT researchers and practitioners is to recognize
SOCIAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL SIDE EFFECTS as a “serious game of life”
using web tools or navigating emotionally through the internet. DIGITAL
NATIVES and DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS are not allocated at the same level
even “playing the same game”. Sharing “secrets” with others discloses
fantasies and desires. Therefore we should appreciate the value not only
of interpretative of INTERPRETATIVE APPROACHES, but also of SEDUCTIVE
TECHNIQUES. Even having a short range of impact their rhythm can be
transformed into a “secret instrument” to communicate. If we do not use
both techniques the “veil of secrecy” on communication vanishes and
knowledge becomes unattractive. DIGITAL NATIVES feel at home by social
networking, because they evolve exactly the pleasure of SWITCHING
between BOTH TECHNIQUES. Therefore researchers (mostly Digital
Immigrants”) should consider both types of performance as integral parts
of a SERIOUS CURRICULUM. Because for the App generation SWITCHING
from SEDUCTIVE to INTERPRETATIVE techniques of ACCESS is not merely a
303
18
Duridanov, Simoff
fiction of a Hollywood story, but defines their “FIRST HOME” or at least
builds an essential part of it.
Bibliography
[Barr/Tagg, 1995] R.Barr, J.Tagg, From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm
for Undergraduate Education, in: Change Vol. 27, No.6, 1995, p.13-23.
[Bass, 2012] R.Bass, Disrupting Ourselves. The Problem of Learning in Higher
Education,
in:
Educause
Review
March–April
2012.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/disrupting-ourselves-problem-learninghigher-education (last seen 20.02.2014)
[Bateson, 1978] Gr.Bateson, The Birth of a Matrix or Double Bind and
Epistemology, in: Berger,M. Beyond the Double Bind. Communication and
Family Systems, Theories and Techniques, New York 1978, p. 41-64.
[Baudrillard, 1994] J.Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press 1994 (original version: 1981).
[Baudrillard, 1985] J.Baudrillard, The Masses. The Implosion of the Social in the
Media 1985.
[Baudrillard, 1988] J.Baudrillard, Selected Writings. Cambridge: Polity Press
1988, 1992².
[Castells, 1996] M.Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Vol.1: The
Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Cambridge Mass.:
Blackwell Publ. 1996, 2008.
[Christensen, 1997] Cl.Christensen, Innovator’s dilemma: when new
technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press 1997.
[Christensen/Raynor, 2003] Cl.Christensen, M.Raynor, Innovator’s solution:
creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press 2003.
[Christensen/ Grossmann/Hwang, 2008] Cl.Christensen, J.Grossmann,
J.Hwang, The Innovator’s Prescription: a Disruptive Solution for Health
Care. New York 2008.
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
304
CSECS 2014, July 04-07 2014, Albena, Bulgaria
19
[Christensen/Eyring, 2011] Cl.Christensen, H.Eyring, The Innovative University:
Changing the DNA of Higher Education from Inside Out. New York 2011.
[Danneels, 2004] E.Danneels. Disruptive Technology Reconsidered, in: The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21, 2004, 246-258.
[Disrupt
Europe,
2013]
Disrupt
Europe
http://www.disruptingeurope.com/2013-2/ (last seen 20.02.2014)
2013
[Enzensberger, 1970] H.-M. Enzensberger, Constituents of a Theory of the
Media, in: New Left Review 64, 1970, 13-36.
[Jenkins, 2009] H.Jenkins et al., Confronting the Challenges of Participatory
Culture. Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: The MIT Press
2009.
[Joly, 1935a] M.Joly, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and
Montesquieu. 1935 (Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu.
Par un contemporain, Brussels 1864).
[Joly, 1935b] M.Joly, Research into the Art of Success (Recherches sur l’art de
parvenir. Par un contemporain, Paris 1868)]
[Mayer-Schönberger/Cukier, 2013] V.Mayer-Schönberger, K.Cukier, Big Data: A
Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think, London: John
Murray 2013.
[Precht/Hüther 2012] D.R.Precht, G.Hüther, Diskussion „Macht Schule dumm“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxKuSS_qn28 (last seen 27.09.2014)
[Precht 2013] D.R.Precht, Anna, die Schule und der liebe Gott, Der Verrat des
Bildungssystems an unseren Kindern, München: Goldmann 2013.
[Sollmann, 2013] U.Sollmann, Einführung in Körpersprache und nonverbale
Kommunikation, Heidelberg: Carl Auer 2013.
[Steiner, 1995] R.Steiner, Philosophy of Freedom. Intuitive Thinking as a
Spritual Path. 1995 (Philosophie der Freiheit, Grundzüge einer modernen
Weltanschauung, Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 4, 1894).
[Yngvesson, 1993] B.Yngvesson, Virtuous citizens, disruptive Subjects: Order
and Complaint in a New England Court. N. York: Routeledge 1993.
305
20
Duridanov, Simoff
Authors' Information
Ludmil Duridanov, Dr. phil., Lecturer at the New Bulgarian
University Sofia, 21 Montevideo Str., Sofia 1618
Major Fields of Scientific Research: Nonverbal Communication,
Information and Communication Technology, Social Networking,
Southeast European Studies.
Simeon Simoff, Prof. Dr., Dean of the School of Computing,
Engineering and Mathematics at the University of Western
Sydney
Major Fields of Scientific Research: Information and
Communications Technology, Data Analytics and Knowledge
Discovery, Electronic Markets, Internet Mathematics, Social
Network Mining
Disruptive Practices of Participatory Learning
306