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