Contents 1. THE CICERO DELEGATION TO STANFORD UNIVERSITY 10-16 OCTOBER 2005.................................................................................. 2 2. CICERO ABSTRACTS ...................................................................... 3

Setting the Context: Learning ......................................................................................................3 Setting the Context: Brain............................................................................................................5 Setting the Context: Technology..................................................................................................7 Other Delegation Abstracts........................................................................................................10

CICERO VISIT TO SCIL, STANFORD UNIVERSITY............................. 12 ORIENTATION TO RESEARCH IN THE BAY AREA.........................................................12 SCIL – CICERO COLLOQUIUM THURSDAY-FRIDAY .....................................................13

4. PRESENTATION OF CICERO ........................................................ 16 5. PRESENTATION OF THE DELEGATION MEMBERS ......................... 17

2

1. THE CICERO DELEGATION TO STANFORD UNIVERSITY 10-16 OCTOBER 2005 Stanford delegation (27 persons) The 1st Vice-Rector, (Vice Chancellor) Professor Hannele Niemi, University of Helsinki National Coordinator Raija Latva-Karjanmaa, Department of Education, University of Helsinki Communications Secretary Kirsikka Mattila, Department of Education, University of Helsinki Local guide Nina Falk Professor Riitta Smeds, Director of SimLab, Helsinki University of Technology Architect, D.Sc. (Tech.) Aija Staffans, Helsinki University of Technology Researcher Päivi Haho, Helsinki University of Technology Researcher Anna Kilpiö, Helsinki University of Technology Professor Riitta Hari, Helsinki University of Technology Professor Mikko Sams, Lab. of Computational Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology Professor, Vice-Rector Erno Lehtinen, Department of Education, University of Turku Professor Sanna Järvelä, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, University of Oulu Professor Jari Multisilta, Advanced Multimedia Center, Tampere University of Technology Researcher Heikki Haaparanta, Advanced Multimedia Center, Tampere University of Technology Professor Heli Ruokamo, Centre for Media Pedagogy, University of Lapland Professor Seppo Tella, Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of Helsinki Senior Research Fellow, Professor Henry Tirri, Nokia, University of Helsinki Professor Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, Centre for the Research and Development of Higher Education, University of Helsinki Professor Leena Krokfors, Centre of Research on Teaching, University of Helsinki Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Professor Patrik Scheinin, University of Helsinki Professor Leenamaija Otala, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology Researcher Lauri Repokari, Research Centre Decode Research Group, Helsinki University of Technology Professor Kristiina Kumpulainen, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, University of Oulu, visiting Professor of University of California, Santa Barbara Professor Ralph Cordova, UCSB Full professor Sirkka Järvenpää, University of Texas at Austin Chairman of the Board Timo Saini, Pro Competence Oy Post Graduate Student, Inventory Manager Jari Harmaala, Delta Motors

3

2. CICERO ABSTRACTS The Abstracts of the Finnish presentations at SCIL-CICERO Colloquium in Stanford

Setting the Context: Learning SUCCESFUL STUDYING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Sari Lindblom-Ylänne¹ & Kirsti Lonka², University of Helsinki, Finland ¹Professor, Director of the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education. ²Professor, Director of the Research Centre for Educational Psychology For effective learning, teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning should match (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999). Students’ individual ways of dealing with the learning environment should also be taken into account. Approaches to teaching should challenge students to develop their thinking and learning (Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 1999; 2000). Studying in higher education involves the gradual process of developing expertise and competence. Amassing a large amount of factual knowledge, while important, is not a sufficient condition for becoming an expert in any area (Lonka, Joram & Bryson, 1996). The organisation of the domain-specific knowledge base essentially differentiates between novices and experts, and cognitive development requires the reorganisation of students’ knowledge structures (Chi, Glaser & Farr, 1988). Expertise should not only show at the knowledge level, but in attitudes, values, and beliefs as well. Self-regulated students are aware of qualities of their own knowledge, beliefs, motivation, and cognitive processes, and these elements jointly create situated updates of the tasks they are working on (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). University student learning is a target for intensive research in Europe. Lonka, Olkinuora and Mäkinen (2004) recently presented a review of current ideas about measuring students’ approaches to learning and studying in higher education. There is a strong need to promote a shift from the less desirable teacher-centred approaches to teaching to the more desirable ones that are student-centred. Such a shift involves the adoption of what may be called 'student-focused academic practice' (Lindblom-Ylänne & Meyer, 1999). The shift from teacher-focused to student-focused academic practice is not only the teachers' concern, since it involves students' active participation in the learning process. Most students, however, are not accustomed to being responsible for their own learning, and teachers are not yet equipped to help their students turn into self-regulated learners. Students, furthermore, are more used to a type of learning where teachers guide and steer their learning process. This kind of learning environment does not support students in developing their self-regulatory skills (Lonka & Ahola, 1995). Students should be encouraged to solve problems while simultaneously reflecting on their own problem-solution process. Such reflection requires, in turn, a basis (one of self-awareness) on which to reflect. In this way students can develop the metacognitive knowledge and skills that are theoretically expected to be reflected in higher performance on curricular tasks in the same domain (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2004). Assessment practices play a major role in education because they strongly guide student learning. Teaching and assessment should be in “constructive alignment” (Biggs, 1996). This means that the basic principle of the learner’s active role in creating meaning should also guide the learning objectives and criteria forming the basis on which student performance is assessed. Traditional ways of assessing learning are not satisfactory when problem-solving

4

or application of knowledge is being measured (Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 2001). Assessment criteria should support teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning.

FINNISH PISA RESULTS: WHERE ARE WE, AND WHY?

Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Professor Patrik Scheinin, Department of Education, University of Helsinki Are students prepared to meet the challenges of the future? Do they have the knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in society? Do they have the capacity to continue learning throughout life? These questions are central from the point of educational policy. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) provides some answers. PISA is an internationally standardised assessment that was jointly developed by participating OECD countries and administered to 15-year-olds in schools. PISA assessed young people’s capacity to use their knowledge and skills. Students had to understand key concepts, to master certain processes and to apply knowledge and skills in different authentic situations, rather than looking at how well they had mastered a specific school curriculum. This makes comparisons between countries possible and fruitful. Information was also collected on student attitudes and approaches to learning. The success of Finnish students in PISA has been a great joy but also a somewhat puzzling experience to those responsible for education in Finland. PISA has transformed our conceptions of the quality of the work done in our comprehensive schools. This has made us think seriously about the special characteristics and strengths of the Finnish educational system and of our comprehensive school. In my presentation I will look at some of the possible reasons underlying the performance of Finnish students in PISA. The results seem to be attributable to several factors having to do with the structure of the educational system, comprehensive pedagogy, teacher education, school practices, students' interests and activities, and, in the end, Finnish history and cultural heritage.

MOTIVATION IN SOCIALLY SHARED LEARNING CONTEXT

Professor Sanna Järvelä, University of Oulu & Professor Marja Vauras, University of Turku Current advancement in learning theories has had a strong influence on the pedagogical development and instructional design. However, the implications, as regards both applied educational research and pedagogical practice, have remained mainly on a rather general level and the concrete consequences of these ideas are not clearly presented. It is difficult to apply new theoretical ideas because the complex interaction of situated, social, motivational, affective and cognitive processes is not yet sufficiently understood. Recent research on collaborative learning has been increasingly interested in the notions shared, collaborative and motivated engagement as critical contributors for a successful learning. Many definitions demonstrate the nature of collaboration as something where cognitive, social and emotional aspects are tightly intertwined. However, these definitions do not as such explain the role of cognitive and motivational regulation in socially shared activities. Our recent research is focusing on three aspects: 1) Conceptualizing motivation as a dual psychological-social phenomenon, 2) Studying motivation in dynamic, socially challenging collaborative learning activities, 3) Studying multilevel developmental, contextual and social dimensions of cognition, motivation, and self- and shared regulation in learning.

5

Based on our long term research work on cognition, motivation, self-regulation, social interaction and technology-based learning environments we have created theoretical approach and research designs which better match with the dynamic processes involved in individuals’ interactions in social situations. We have created a dynamic system analytic approach to examine how different components of learning are related to each other in the emerging and developing interaction patterns in instructional contexts (Lehtinen, Vauras, Salonen, Olkinuora & Kinnunen, 1995; Järvelä, Salonen & Lepola, 2001; Vauras et al. 2001). Also notions of contextual motivation have been developed and empirically analysed which have proved to be a useful grounding for understanding student goals, intentions and emotions across situations – in real contexts and real time highlighting the context-person mutual influences (Volet & Järvelä, 2001; Järvelä & Volet, 2004). We have also created a conceptual framework and new methods for studying how learners regulate motivational challenges in social learning context (Järvelä, Volet & Järvenoja, 2005; Järvenoja, Volet & Järvelä, 2005; Volet, Vauras & Salonen, 2005). Our empirical studies have been conducted in variety of settings, mostly dealing with technology-based learning environments and socially shared learning. Long-term research projects have been carried out in computer supported collaborative learning inquiries and in instructional settings of different domains (mathematics, natural sciences and reading comprehension). Recent research is focusing on self-regulation and motivation in collaborative learning scaffolded by innovative technology, such as 3D game technology and wireless technology.

Setting the Context: Brain

NEUROCOGNITION OF MULTISENSORY PERCEPTION

Professor Mikko Sams Laboratory of Computational Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology Seeing articulation improves speech perception in noise and may also modify auditory percepts, as occurs in the well-known McGurk effect. During the last 15 years, we have started to understand the brain mechanisms underlying audiovisual speech perception. Interactions of auditory and visual speech at posterior superior temporal areas have been found in numerous studies. Evidence has accumulated that visual speech modifies activity in the auditory cortex, even in the primary auditory cortex. Visual influences on cortical auditory processing can be quite early, occurring already about 100 ms from the onset of the auditory stimulus. Moreover, our recent results suggest that seeing speech may influence processing in the auditory brainstem at about 10 ms latency form the onset of the auditory stimulus. When considering such early effects, it is important to remember that in normal speech the onset of articulatory movements start often even 100 ms before the onset of acoustic speech stimulus. Normal readers and dyslexics process audiovisual speech is different ways. We have evidence that despite being less accurate in identifying unisensory visual stimuli, dyslexic children are more likely than normal readers to report hearing only the visual component of conflicting audiovisual stimuli in poor listening conditions. In our recent fMRI study we compared neural processing of audiovisual speech in dyslexic and fluent readers. Both groups showed increased activation during observation of phonetically conflicting compared to matching vowels within the classical motor speech regions (Broca's area and the left premotor cortex), this activation difference being more extensive and bilateral in the dyslexic group. We suggest that these findings reflect dyslexic readers' greater use of motor-articulatory and visual strategies during phonetic processing of audiovisual speech, possibly to compensate for their difficulties in auditory speech perception.

6

ACTION-PERCEPTION LINK IN HUMAN BRAIN FUNCTION Professor Riitta Hari Brain Research Unit, Low Temperature Laboratory, and Advanced Magnetic Imaging Centre, Helsinki University of Technology The classical view of brain function emphasizes sequential information processing: Sensory stimuli reach, via specific channels, the brain where they are processed in a complex neuronal network. Motor execution, which then transfers the output to the external world, is considered to be of less importance to higher brain functions. This view requires serious reconsideration. Our brains have developed and function in continous interaction with the environment. Especially demanding is the interindividual communication which works only if the individuals can “stay tuned”. Think, for example, about crickets whose acoustic communication is temperature-dependent: alterations in temperature induce parallel changes in production of the calling song (by males) and, fortunately, also in the perceptual preference for the song (by females) (Pires and Hoy, J Comp Neurol 1992). Importantly, the required “parity” of the receptive and productive modes between different individuals of a species inevitably leads into a tight action–perception coupling within each individual; this is because one subject’s output is the other’s input, and vice versa. “Mirror neurons”, which were first found in the monkey frontal cortex (Rizzolatti et al., Nature Rev Neurosci 2001), could serve as links between the sender and receiver of a motor-act based message. The human mirror-neuron system (Nishitani and Hari, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000) comprises several interconnected brain areas and provides a plausible platform for shared motor representations and action–perception coupling; especially the inferior frontal cortex (Broca’s region) and the parietal cortex are important in this respect. As an example of the emerging “motor cognition”, the motor theory of speech perception proposes that the listener matches her/his own motor representations to the phonetic articulation patterns of the speaker (Liberman and Whalen, Trends Cogn Sci 2000). Effective human–human interactions require both motor and sensory representations to be shared between individuals, and common sensorimotor representations have been suggested to exist within each individual. The observer’s own somatosensory brain function is modified when (s)he sees another person to touch objects (Avikainen et al., Neuroimage 2002) or to be touched (Keysers et al., Neuron 2004). Some of the sensory activations associated with action observation might be related to “efference copies” that inform the sensory areas about the forthcoming sensory input. Sensory mirroring extends to pain: In addition to the pain experience itself, also the intensity of the observed pain is encoded in the observer’s brain circuitries (Saarela et al., submitted). The motor and sensory mirroring systems are essential for embodied perception, action simulation, and imitation. The great easiness of learning by imitation likely relies on direct motor matching mechanisms. The action–perception coupling within and between individuals could also provide the brain basis for intersubjectivity. In behaving humans this coupling includes interaction with objects, tools, and other individuals, all affecting both sensory and motor functions in the actor’s brain.

7

Setting the Context: Technology

DEVELOPING PROFESSIONALLY – PROFESSIONALS DEVELOPING, INTERACTING WITH, AND LEARNING FROM VIDEO-CASE OBSERVATIONS

Kristiina Kumpulainen University of Jyvaskyla University of California, Santa Barbara, Cultural landscapes research collaborative Austin Val Verde Foundation Ralph Cordova University of California, Santa Barbara Cultural landscapes research collaborative Austin Val Verde Foundation This presentation discusses the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of a research project which explores the possibilities of digital video case material to support the professional learning of teachers in workplace and teacher education settings. The research project is closely connected with the ongoing MATIS, Mathematics Teacher Education in the Information Society -project which investigates the application and adaptation of digital case materials in Finnish pre-service mathematics teacher education. The research project extends the existing research work of the MATIS-project by creating new digital video case data of authentic teaching and learning practices in a local progressive school in California. By researching the collection, creation and application of digital case materials within the social and cultural context of an elementary school, the research project investigates the meaning and role of the case materials in supporting teachers' reflection of their local teaching and learning practices. By investigating teacher discourses from the individual, social and cultural dimensions, the research project aims, as a whole, at increasing scientific knowledge about the professional learning processes of teachers with 21st century technological tools. The research project will also develop pedagogical guidelines and instructional activities for meaningful and empowering teacher learning with digital media in higher education and school-based settings. This research project is part of a larger program of research of the Cultural Landscapes Living as Learning Research Collaborative. The work of the collaborative is grounded in sociocultural and sociolinguistic theories of language and learning (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Fairclough, 1992; Frake, 1977; Ivanic, 1994; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992 a & b; Spradley, 1984). The interactive context wherein the development and research work of the collaborative is conducted is the nexus of classroom-based teacher research inquiries; school-wide faculty meetings as well as family and community-based knowledge practices. From an ethnographic methodological perspective, it then becomes possible to examine the interactive and transformative nature of these spaces and how they provide opportunities for professional learning (Agar, 1994). In order to illustrate the work of the research collaborative in action, we shall present one of the contexts, that is, the school faculty meetings as a space for professionals developing, developing professionals. References Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education 4, 269-293. Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of

8

identity in academic writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Frake, C.R. (1977). Playing frames can be dangerous: Some reflections on methodology in cognitive anthropology. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development 3, 1-7. Bloome, D. & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly 28(4), 305-333. Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1992a). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational restructuring. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 119-150. Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1992b). Do you see what we see? The referential and intertextual nature of classroom life. Journal of Classroom Interaction 27(2), 29-36.

NETWORK-BASED MOBILE EDUCATION: TOWARDS EXPERIENTIAL TSL PROCESSES

Professors Heli Ruokamo, Seppo Tella, Jari Multisilta, Riitta Smeds, Hannele Niemi & Raija Latva-Karjanmaa The main aim of the MoMEx consortium is to find out how network-based mobile education (NBME) mediates experiential teaching-studying-learning (TSL) processes geared towards a global model of trans-cultural knowledge co-creation. The research questions are: 1) How does network-based mobile education (NBME), especially desktop virtual reality and simulations, mediate experiential TSL processes? 2) In what ways is trans-cultural knowledge co-creation supported in NBME by pedagogical models designed for desktop virtual reality and a mobile campus? 3) Once implemented and assessed, how do these pedagogical models contribute to a global revised model of NBME? MoMEx aims at studying learners, learner communities and teachers in different TSL contexts in Finland and abroad. Our research is case-based, focusing on four main levels of observation: cultural, pedagogical models, activities and individual acts. The key concepts of analysis are: network-based mobile education, experiential and emotional, trans-cultural, knowledge co-creation and mediation. The case studies will create, maintain, and evaluate TSL processes and their contextual factors, in order to enable us to build up a global model of trans-cultural knowledge co-creation. The MoMEx research applies a trans-disciplinary mixed-methods strategy: the approach is characterised by a multiple-site case study methodology, which allows us to incorporate research findings from various angles into our global model of trans-cultural knowledge co-creation. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methods will be used. MoMEx research proceeds through three case studies (Mobile Campus, Virtual Reality in Innovation-Education, and Game-Based Reusable Learning Objects), one cross case study (New Technologies in Teachers and Mentors Everyday Life), and evaluates the case studies through process simulations. The project outcomes will be: 1) The global model of trans-cultural knowledge co-creation, 2) An educationally-relevant collection of good practices and recommendations related to NBME, 3) A deeper understanding of the TSL processes, 3) Increased collaboration in doctoral students' supervision between different universities, and 4) A network of researchers and universities built at both national and international level.

9

URBAN PLANNING AS A LEARNING PROCESS

Professor Riitta Smeds, Information networks Director, SimLab Helsinki University of Technology TKK Computer Science and Engineering The starting point of SimLab’s multidisciplinary research at Helsinki University of technology TKK is the process view of business as well as communal services. Since 1998, we study and teach innovations and learning in the processes and business models, to enhance innovation in the networked society and to increase scientific knowledge in the field. Starting with demand-to-delivery and product development processes in industry, our research scope has widened to include complex service networks and public private partnerships in e.g. e-Learning, welfare services and urban planning. The core method of our research is developmental action research through participative SimLab™ business process simulations. SimLab’s newest multidisciplinary research project OPUS (2005-07; opus.tkk.fi) is conducted as a joint project with TKK’s Department of Architecture, Laboratory of Urban Planning and Design. The Family Federation of Finland is our external research partner and EVTEK our development partner. We research urban planning and everyday life as a learning process. The complex, networked virtual community of practice in urban planning consists of the involved municipal officials, political decision makers and professional experts, but also the large, amorphous network of actors that have a role and an interest in the planning of the urban area, including e.g. the land owners, construction companies, service providers, third sector organizations and the individual residents. Through concrete, developmental action research in selected Finnish urban planning cases, OPUS aims to develop a new model for urban planning as a networked learning process. This so called P4–model: Public-Private-People-Partnership is supported by the application of a set of tools and methods: • the participative, conversation-based SimLab™ process simulations • the web-based SoftGIS method for the collection oft the residents’ everyday experiences and evaluations of their living environment, • the web-based Development Forum for the local interaction between the residents and planners.

10

Other Delegation Abstracts

TEACHER EDUCATION AS MULTI-MODE EDUCATION

Professor Leena Krokfors, Centre of Research on Teaching, University of Helsinki

opettajankoulutus

Multimode teacher education program

Learning in one’s own class

Practising in one’s own class

Teacher’s

pedagogical

thinking

Integration

Learning while working

Research-based teacher education

Figure. The research design. The aim of the research project is to investigate how a multimode teacher education program supports the pedagogical idea of research-based teacher education. The focus is on the theoretical elaboration of learning while working on the basis of the theory of teacher’s pedagogical thinking. In the program, the students study and work as class teachers simultaneously. This enables the integration of theory and practice which is another theme of the research. An emerging topic is a wider investigation of research-based teacher education, particularly students’ experiences of it. The research project started in 2003 and it will end in 2006. It continues the research and development work that was established in the 1990s. The manager of the project is Prof. Leena Krokfors. Up to the spring 2005 there were 12 published items in the project.

PROCESSING LOCAL, PLACE-BASED KNOWLEDGE IN URBAN PLANNING AND DESINGN

Architect, D.Sc. (Tech.), Aija Staffans Manager of Laboratory, Urban Planning and Design Department of Architecture, Helsinki University of Technology The increasingly complex challenges that govern the quality of life in our cities cannot be solved by one or two players acting on their own. Instead, the future competitiveness of cities depends on local actors´ ability to set aside traditional, segmented and aspatial approaches and develop place-based policy rooted in collaborative, multilevel governance. This requires a more dynamic organization of networks and partnerships to enhance the quality and to increase the innovations in urban planning processes. Judicially, the most powerful instruments of urban planning and design are different sanctioned land-use-plans on regional, general and detailed levels. From this point of view, urban planning can be seen as a community of practice, which is institutionally bound up with the political decision making (mainly on local, municipal level) and with the professional

11

expertise responsible for preparing the decisions and plans. Besides this narrow but judicially clear definition, urban planning can be seen as a more comprehensive concept including several social, professional, ethical and political processes by which the community affects its members´ quality of life and environment, and future development. From this point of view, urban planning is no longer only a question of preparing land use plans but a wide range of timely managed processes including different plans, decisions and actions. Helsinki University of Technology is, in cooperation with two of its laboratories (the Enterprise Simulation Laboratory SimLab and the Laboratory of Urban Planning and Design) conducting a research project called OPUS. With a vision of planning and design as a well-managed and facilitated learning process we carry on a three year research program supported by several methodological experiments (process simulation, participatory GIS, local internet forums, interactive process mapping etc.). In OPUS urban planning is examined as a communal learning process in which there is a continuous dialogue between the institutional conditions, political and professional ideals and norms, and the practices of everyday life. Planning is also a process of creating, collecting and managing new knowledge. However, present planning processes don’t sufficiently bring together the residents’ local knowledge, based on every-day- life experiences, and the formal planning institutions based on expertise knowledge. The research interests of our laboratories are, in the context of urban planning and design, 1. to develop urban processes towards better understanding of local knowledge and different meanings of a place and 2. to research urban processes as a part of places-based public policy.

12

CICERO VISIT TO SCIL, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

The base of a Roman column, Abbaye-aux-Dames

• TUESDAY-WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 11-12, 2005: BAY AREA RESEARCH AND INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATION

• THURSDAY-FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13-14, 2005: SCIL – CICERO WORKSHOP AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY

• FRIDAY EVENING: COCKTAILS AND FESTIVE DINNER AT VICTOR’S RESTAURANT (IN THE ST. FRANCIS HOTEL) IN SAN FRANCISCO

• SATURDAY MORNING 8.30 CICERO BREAKFAST MEETING

TUESDAY 11.10 AT WESTIN ST FRANCIS HOTEL

ORIENTATION TO RESEARCH IN THE BAY AREA 9.00 General introduction and information about the week, Hannele Niemi & Raija Latva-Karjanmaa

9.30 Research Co-operation University-Enterprise and funding opportunities

9.30 PhD Riku Mäkelä, TEKES, San Jose Office

10.30 Hartti Suomela, Nokia Corporation

11.00 - 12.00 CICERO WORKSHOP, in Finnish: jatketaan CICEROn toiminnan suunnittelua

12.00 - 13.30 LUNCH

13.30 - 14.30 CICERO WORKSHOP

14.30 The meeting is finished

WEDNESDAY 12.10

PARALLEL VISITS TO UNIVERSITIES AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH LABS,

INDUSTRIAL GROUP VISIT

Arranged by Prof. Jari Multisilta and Dr. Riku Mäkelä

Macromedia (San Franciscon keskustassa) yms.

13

SCIL – CICERO COLLOQUIUM THURSDAY-FRIDAY

PROGRAM THURSDAY 13th October, Wallenberg Hall

10:00 - 10:30 Overview of Stanford, Media X, Keith Devlin

10:30 – 11:00 Overview of SCIL, Roy Pea

11:00 – 11:30 Overview of WGLN, Craig Heller and Cammy Huang

12:00 Cafeteria lunch for Finnish visitors in the Clark Center 13:00 Tour of the campus 14:15 Tour of Wallenberg Hall 14:50 Tea, coffee 15.00 - 15:30 OPENING SESSION Greetings: Stig Hagström and Roy Pea, Directors of SCIL Presentation of the Finnish Educational and Innovation policy: Vice Chancellor Hannele Niemi, University of Helsinki 15.30 - 16:00 GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER MARKET

Half the participants sit down at tables and the remainder go round to each one and has 2 minutes to describe her/his

research. A bell rings when each 2 minutes has elapsed! 16.00 - 17:30 SETTING THE CONTEXT: LEARNING 16:00 - 16:10 Introduction, Sari Lindblom-Ylänne and Daniel Schwartz, Chairs 16:10 - 16:20 Patrik Scheinin: Finnish PISA Results: Where are we, and why? 16:20 - 16:25 Discussion 16:25 - 16:35 Erno Lehtinen: Research on processes of conceptual chance 16:35 - 16:40 Discussion 16.40 - 16.50 Sanna Järvelä: Motivation in socially shared learning contexts 16:50 - 16:55 Discussion 16:55 - 17:05 Aki Murata: The development of early arithmetic 17:05 - 17:10 Discussion 17:10 - 17:20 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne: Successful studying in Higher education 17:20 - 17:25 Discussion 17:25 - 17:35 Daniel Schwartz: Innovation and efficiency in the transfer of learning 17:35 – 17:40 Discussion 17.40 - 18:00 COFFEE BREAK

14

18.00 - 19:30 SETTING THE CONTEXT: BRAIN 18:00 - 18:10 Introduction, Mikko Sams and Erik Knudsen, Chairs 18:10 - 18:25 Erik Knudsen: Mechanisms of learning in the auditory system of the barn owl 18:25 - 18:30 Discussion 18:30 - 18:45 Riitta Hari: Action-Perception Link in Human Brain Function 18:45 - 18:50 Discussion 18:50 - 19:05 Steven Miller: Using Neuroscience and Advanced Technologies to Accelerate Academic

Performance 19:05 - 19:10 Discussion 19:10 - 19:25 Mikko Sams: Neurocognition of multisensory perception 19:25 - 19:30 Discussion

19:30 WINE AND NIBBLES IN WALLENBERG HALL FRIDAY SCIL – CICERO COLLOQUIUM, Wallenberg Hall 9:00 - 9:15 Breakfast (coffee, juice, pastries, fruit) 9.15 - 11.00 SETTING THE CONTEXT: TECHNOLOGY 9.15 - 9.25 Introduction: Prof. Roy Pea and Kristiina Kumpulainen, Chairs 9.25 - 9.35 Roy Pea: Using Guided Noticing for Digital Video Learning and Research: DIVER as a Digital Video Collaboratory Platform 9.35 - 9.40 Discussion 9:40 – 9:50 Kristiina Kumpulainen and Ralph Cordova: Developing Professionally - professionals developing,

Interacting with, and learning from video-case observations

9:50 - 9.55 Discussion 9:55 - 10:05 Brigid Barron: The development of youth technological fluencies 10:05 - 10:10 Discussion 10.10 - 10.20 Heli Ruokamo, Seppo Tella, Jari Multisilta, Riitta Smeds, Hannele Niemi & Raija Latva-Karjanmaa: Network-Based Mobile Education: Towards Experiential TSL Processes 10.20 - 10.25 Discussion 10:25 - 10:35 Renate Fruchter: Talking Paper in learning teams 10:35 - 10:40 Discussion 10.40 - 10.50 Riitta Smeds: Urban Planning as a Collaborative Learning Process 10.50 - 10.55 Discussion 11.00 - 11.30 COFFEE BREAK

15

11.30 - 14.30 THEMATIC WORKING GROUPS GOALS OF THE WORKING GROUPS:

indentifying joint interests in Working groups. designing co-operation forms: workshops, information exchange, researcher exchange, research co-operation,

strategic papers? year 2006 co-operation

LEARNING: Sari Lindblom-Ylänne & Daniel Schwartz BRAIN: Mikko Sams & Erik Knudsen TECHNOLOGY: Heli Ruokamo and Roy Pea 11:30 WORKING GROUPS BEGIN 12.30 LUNCH 13.30 WORKING GROUPS CONTINUE (preparing a summarizing presentations to the Colloquium) 14.30 - 15.30 WORKING GROUP SUMMARIES 14:30 - 14:50 Learning 14:50 - 15:10 Brain 15:10 - 15:30 Technology 15.30 - 16.30 NEXT STEPS AND CLOSING 15:30 - 16:15 Discussion of future cooperation - Action plan - Other ongoing initiatives - WGLN, LIFE Center - Funding for Stanford researchers, visitors to Finland 16:15 - 16:45 Closing remarks, Arthur Bienenstock, Stanford Dean of Research 17.00 BUS TRANSPORTATION FOR ALL DINNER GUESTS TO SAN FRANCISCO 18.30 COCKTAILS AND FESTIVE DINNER AT VICTOR’S RESTAURANT (IN THE ST. FRANCIS HOTEL) IN SAN FRANCISCO CICERO invites the Colloquium to Finnish Cocktails and Dinner, 25-30 participants from CICERO 25-30 from Stanford; spouses/partners welcome.

16

4. PRESENTATION OF CICERO CICERO Learning CICERO Learning is a cross-disciplinary Initiative for Collaborative Efforts of Research on Learning. CICERO Learning (CL) is a network of high-level research groups from the research-intensive universities in Finland. It was established in the year 2005, and is co-ordinated by the University of Helsinki. CL invites the acknowledged researchers in Europe and globally to join the research co-operation. Conducting cutting edge research on learning, CL aims at academic innovations and synergies between the research community and industry. Cicero comprises all research areas active in the field of learning research, such as:

Learning and the brain: The biological, philosophical, psychological and social base of learning Learning throughout life and in different contexts: learning from different theoretical and cultural perspectives, teaching, studying and learning, learning at work and knowledge management The technologies of learning: web based learning, mobile learning, the human-computer interface and learning machines Learning and the society: the societal and economic impacts of learning, competence building, social innovations and issues of inclusion and exclusion.

WHY CICERO?

The complex societies of today require innovations in learning. The CL initiative arises from the determination in Finnish society to be a leader in learning and teaching and to excel in learning outcomes. Equally important is the goal to keep Finland among the leading countries in innovations and industrial development. CICERO Learning emphasises the national and global understanding of the conditions of learning in societies, working life, educational institutions and on the individual level. THE NEAR FUTURE CICERO Learning builds co-operation with acknowledged research groups and units around the world. The near future of CL consists of the following activities:

• Discovering new openings for cross-disciplinary research • Building joint research activities with internationally-acknowledged research groups • Facilitating international researcher exchange • Organising high-level national and international research workshops • Research co-operation with national and global industries

More information: In January 2006 a CICERO website will be created. More information about CICERO will be available at the end of 2005. Professor Hannele Niemi, 1st Vice Rector, University of Helsinki hannele.niemi@helsinki.fi

17

5. PRESENTATION OF THE DELEGATION MEMBERS Hannele Niemi (Ph.D., Full Professor of Education) Vice-Chancellor, University of Helsinki, 2003 – 2007 University of Helsinki, Central Administration (leave of absence in Faculty of Behavioral sciences, Department of Education until 2007) Dean 2001 – 2003, Vice-Dean 1998-2000, University of Helsinki hannele.niemi@helsinki.fi, 358-9-19123366 or 358-40-5558975 www.edu.helsinki.fi/ktl/hanneleniemie.htm 1. Who am I? Hannele Niemi has had many memberships in scientific councils, e.g. the Standing Committee of Social Sciences of the European Science Foundation, the Council for Society and Culture in the Academy of Finland and the Scientific Council of the University of Helsinki. She is Scientific Director of the national research program "Life as Learning", Academy of Finland, 2002-2006 and the steering committee member of the British national research program on Teaching and Learning. She is an advisory or a reviewer in many scientific journals. She has been Chair or a researcher in many national and international evaluation projects for development of educational research and teacher education. Her main research interest areas are teachers’ professional development, value education and technology based learning environments. She is the member of the focus group, 2004-2005 to develop European framework for teacher competences and qualifications (The European Commission), the member of Erasmus Mundus review Board, 2004- (European Commission). 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? Technology-based learning environments in universities and innovations in higher education pedagogy. 3. Who would you like to meet? Professor Roy Pea Professor Brad Osgood, Associate Dean – Academic, University of Stanford Dr Michele Marincovich, Associate Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Director, CTL, University of Stanford 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Niemi, H.., Virtanen, P. & Nevgi, A. 2005. Towards collaboration and joint-regulated learning in web-based environments. Selected papers in Proceedings of EDEN Conference in Helsinki, June 20-24, 2005. Niemi, H. 2004. Learning towards empowerment in the Future Europe. LLine. Lifelong learning in Europe Vol. IX 1/2004, 10-18. Niemi, H, 2003. Towards a learning society in Finland: information and communications technology in teacher education, Technology, pedagogy and education 2003: 1, s. 85-03. Niemi, H. & Nevgi, A. & Virtanen, P. 2003 Towards self-regulation in Web-based learning, Journal of Educational Media 28 (2003):1, s. 49-71 Niemi, H, 2003. Competence building in life-wide learning. Innovation, competence building and social cohesion in Europe s. 219-239, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar. Niemi, H. 2002. Active learning––a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18 (8), 763-78.

18

Niemi. H. 2002. Empowering learners in virtual university. In Niemi, H. & Ruohotie, P. (Eds.). Theoretical understandings for learning in virtual university. Hämeenlinna: Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, 1-37. Niemi, H. 2001. Promoting Active Learning – Practices and Obstacles in Teacher education. In Liimets, A. (Hrsg.) Integration als Problem in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 185-198. Niemi. H. 2000. Why is active learning so difficult? In Beairsto, B & Ruohotie, P. (eds.) Empowering teachers as lifelong learners : reconceptualizing, restructuring and reculturing teacher education for the information age, Hämeenlinna: Research Centre for Vocational Education, 97-126. Niemi, H. 2000. Teacher education confronting a moving horizon. Kumpulainen, K (Ed.) In search of powerful learning environments for teacher education in the 21st century. Oulu : Oulun yliopisto, Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Series E. Scientiae rerum socialium 39, s. 16-29. 5. Your current contacts in Stanford? The network of higher education pedagogy in research intensive universities (Meeting in the University of Oxford in June 2005) with Professor Brad Osgood, Associate Dean – Academic, University of Stanford and Dr Michele Marincovich, Associate Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Director, CTL, University of Stanford. ___________________________________________________________________________ Researcher Raija Latva-Karjanmaa, National Research Programme Coordinator raija.latva-karjanmaa@helsinki.fi Helsinki University & Academy of Finland +358-40-563 8929; +358-9-191 20629 www.aka.fi/learn Born in Sweden, bilingual Swedish-Finnish 1. Who am I? National Research Programme Coordinator Academy of Finland 2003-2006, Programme Coordinator of IQ FORM, for the Finnish virtual University 2001-2003. Consortia Coordinator, Learningspace project for European Unions co-operation project between national research programmes on learning, 2001-2003. Finalizing PhD Degree in the national Doctoral school of Learning environments. Evaluator, European Commission 2005 (INTAS), Evaluator, Ministry of Labour European Social funds projects, 2004, Evaluator, European Commission, R & D projects, 2003. I have worked as an External Expert for the Ministry of Education 2000-2004 and Expert for the designing new research programmes for the Academy of Finland (Life as Learning 2000-2002, and Business Programme 2004). National Information Officer in Finland for NSF of USA, Research and Innovation Liaison Manager, EAIE, European Association, of International Education, Research Liaison Officer of the Helsinki University of Technology 1999-2000, Senior Planning Officer, European Affairs, Helsinki University of Technology, since 1.6.1994. Researcher for the European Commission DG XXII for ERASMUS, 1995-96, the Open and Distance Learning in the ERASMUS programme. Designer of the International apprecticeship Programme for Nokia Group and ABB Insdusry 1990-1993. Head of the International Student Union, IUSY Students 1987-1988. Head of a national Student Union. Member of Research Council at the Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, University of Helsinki, 2005. Member of University Council, 1985-1987, University of Jyväskylä 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe your co-operation idea? My objective is to develop research collaboration between SCIL and other CICERO-partners, possible also with Swedish universities (e.g. Chalmers, University of Gothenburg). Interesting research areas for SCIL-collaboration connected to. I also wish to search for possibilities for

19

researcher exchange for myself to conduct international comparative studies and about mediation in virtual learning environments. 3. Who would you like to meet? - Professors Roy Pea, Brigid Barron and Camillan Wong 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning I’m finalizing my PhD degree in the University of Helsinki: The role and quality of mediation on virtual learning environments. My studies show, that The concept of mediation gives a helpful intellectual tool to asses the learning environment: Mediation can be seen mediated activity, where most attention is paid on to higher mental processes and internal mediated activity Mediation is can also be seen as mediated learning experiences it has a dynamic modus but it is also an emotional and psychological experience. Mediation can be defined as empowering, while giving goals, stimulating transfer and adding meaning to learning. I have been researching mediation in netbased learning environments and interviewed students. The role of a human or humanlike mediator can be seen as essential for learning. In a virtual learning environment a human mediator is not directly available but human interaction is still vital. This research shows how a special adaptive tool based in Internet for assisting learning (IQ FORM) can act as a mediator supporting learning. I’m continuing my research after PhD next year and looking for international partners. The research together with the MOMEX consortium (Ruokamo, Kumpulainen, Tella, Multisilta) is targeted at: 1) how does network-based mobile education (NBME) mediate experiential learning processes), 2) how do the students experience the mobile campus in their everyday life , and 3) can mobile campus evoke activity, which stimulates goal oriented, transferential and meaningful learning (Latva-Karjanmaa, Raija (2002) Mediation in Virtual Learning Environments. In Niemi, Hannele & Ruohotie, Pekka (eds.) Theoretical Understandings for Learning in Virtual University. Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training (RCVE) University of Tampere) 6. Your current contacts in Stanford? Stig Hagström, Reinhold Steinbeck and Keith Devlin ___________________________________________________________________________ Full Professor Riitta Smeds, Director of SimLab, Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SimLab research and teaching unit. riitta.smeds@tkk.fi, +358-50-5148537; +358-9-4513640 www.simlab.hut.fi 1. Who am I? Riitta Smeds is Professor of Information Networks at Helsinki University of Technology, where she earned the degrees of M.Sc., Lic.Sc. and D.Sc. in Industrial Management. She is founder and director of the multidisciplinary Enterprise Simulation Laboratory SimLab, docent at the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, founding member of Continuous Innovation Network CINet, member of IFIP TC 5, IFIP WG 5.7 on Integrated Production Management, and Chair of IFIP WG 5.7 Special Interest Group on Experimental Interactive Learning in Industrial Management. She is fellow of the European Academy of Industrial Management, and member on the editorial boards of three international scientific journals. Her current research areas are development of business processes and networks, inter-organizational learning and innovation, and participative process simulation. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe your co-operation idea? My objective is to develop research collaboration between SCIL, SimLab and other CICERO-partners, possible also with Swedish universities (e.g. Chalmers, University of Technology at Lund, and KTH). Interesting research areas for SCIL-collaboration connected to current SimLab research would be e.g.: business process learning and innovation in company networks; Collaborative design, experimentation and implementation of web-based teaching-studying-learning processes (MoMEx); urban planning as collaborative ICT-enabled learning process. I

20

also wish to search for possibilities for researcher exchange to conduct international comparative case studies and an international survey. And I would like to visit some experimental research facilities and key professors on collaborative, ICT-supported learning and innovation (e.g. the Wallenberg Hall, CIFE, PBL Lab, CRGB, IRoom…) 3. Who would you like to meet? Professor Renate Fruchter and other professors from CIFE, professors form PBL Lab and CRGB, professors of the Media X network, especially in the field of collaborative, networked learning and innovation. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning SimLab conducts currently developmental action research and comparative case studies with case organizations and their partners on collaborative learning and innovation in: 1) networked business processes and business models, 2) web-based teaching and studying in educational institutions and companies; 3) urban planning processes, and 4) networked welfare services. The learning in the business processes and business models of the case company networks, often including also end customers, are supported and researched through participative SimLab™ process simulations in SimLab’s collaborative innovation space. 5. Your current contacts in Stanford? Professor Renate Fruchter. I will meet her in Finland in September 2005 and discuss the collaboration. Previous contacts with James C. March. ___________________________________________________________________________ Full Professor, Dr. Sanna Järvelä University of Oulu, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education Research Unit for Educational Technology, www.oulu.fi/Welcome.html sanna.jarvela@oulu.fi, +358045777164 cc.oulu.fi/~sjarvela/ Research Unit for Educational Technology: edtech.oulu.fi/english/ 1. Who am I? I am a professor in the field of learning and educational technology. I am the head of the Research Unit for Educational Technology in the Department of Educational Sciences. My main research deals with learning processes in technology-based and virtual learning environments, social and motivational processes in learning, self-regulated and computer supported collaborative learning. I have been an expert in different national (e.g. Ministry of Education) and international expert commissions (e.g. OECD and scientific organizations). During the year 2000-2001 I was visiting scholar in Kings’ College London, UK. I have 10 full time PhD students and we have been invited for the European scientific Network of Excellence “Kaleidoscope”. I have published more than 40 scientific papers in international refereed journals and several book chapters. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I aim especially for developing PhD and Post-Doc student collaboration in between SCIL/Stanford and research. My aim is also to develop long term research collaboration in the field of research in learning and educational technology – as well as joint research proposals and funding. 3. Who would you like to meet? I would like to meet people involved in the MediaX project and LIFE- center (e.g. Roy, Pea, John Brandsford, Bridget Barron). 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning

21

My research group http://edtech.oulu.fi/english/index.htm is working with issues connected to the basic processes of learning, such as social interaction, motivation and self-regulated learning. Special effort has been put to develop theoretical understanding of students’ learning processes in technology-supported environments and methods for on-line process oriented data collection. The context of the studies deals with technology-based - computer supported, mobile and virtual - collaborative learning environments from secondary school through higher education to work contexts.The group has an active network of international and national research groups. There is also close interdisciplinary collaboration with such fields as information sciences, electrical engineering and applied language studies. Current research projects: Ecology of Collaboration (ECOL) : Collaboration as Motivated and Co-ordinated Activity in virtual spaces (e.g. 3D-collaborative game environment in Higher Education or distributed virtual team context) (Funded by the Finnish Science Academy) MOREL - Motivation, self-regulation and learning in conventional and new learning environments (Funded by the Finnish Science Academy) SCORE - Pedagogical Structuring of Collaboration and Self-Regulated Learning: Individual and Group-Level Perspectives (Funded by European Science Foundation) MOSIL - Mobile support for integrated learning (Funded by the EU NoE Kaleidoscope) ___________________________________________________________________________ Full Professor Leena Krokfors University of Helsinki, Department of Applied Sciences of Education Centre of Research on Teaching, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences of Education leena.krokfors@helsinki.fi, +358 50 3083380, +358 9 191 29587 1. Who am I? Professor of Teacher Education, Head of the Class Teacher Education 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I am interested to learn how teaching practices have been organized and what kind of partnership arrangements has been developed. The study programs of teacher education are also in the focus of my interest areas especially the ideas and visions of teacher qualifications and competences. 3. Who would you like to meet? I would like to meet teacher educators and researchers as well as students and their teachers at the practicing situations. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning The aim of the research project I am leading at a moment is to investigate how a multimode teacher education program supports the pedagogical idea of research-based teacher education. The focus is on the theoretical elaboration of learning while working on the basis of the theory of teacher’s pedagogical thinking. In the program, the students study and work as class teachers simultaneously. This enables the integration of theory and practice which is another theme of the research. An emerging topic is a wider investigation of research-based teacher education, particularly students’ learning experiences in it. The research project started in 2003 and it will end in 2006. It continues the research and development work that was established in the 1990s. Up to the spring 2005 there were 12 published items in the project. ___________________________________________________________________________

22

Full Professor Seppo Tella University of Helsinki; Faculty of Behavioral Sciences; Department of Applied Sciences of Education; Research Center for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct); Media Education Center (ME) seppo.tella@helsinki.fi, +358 9 191 29620 www.helsinki.fi/~tella/ http://www.helsinki.fi/sokla/english/enfle/index.htm (ReFLEct) http://www.helsinki.fi/sokla/english/media/index.html (ME) 1. Who am I? www.helsinki.fi/tella/cvweb.html Professor of Foreign Language Education; Director of the Research Center for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct); Former Director of the Media Education Center (ME); Professor of Media Education (1996–2001); • specialist in foreign language education, research, and teaching methodology, including cross-cultural communication, dialogic communication, language-specific educational applications of information and communication technologies (ICTs), and future-oriented language teaching and learning methodology; • specialist in media education, including CMHC (computer-mediated human communication), ICTs (information and communication technologies), the Virtual School concept, ODL (open and distance learning), network-based education (NBE), the teaching–studying–learning process. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I look forward to research-oriented collaboration regarding (i) network-based mobile education (NBME), (ii) experiential teaching–studying–learning (TSL) processes geared towards trans-cultural knowledge co-creation, and (iii) future-oriented research methodology in general and in foreign/second language teaching, studying and learning in particular. 3. Who would you like to meet? I would appreciate a chance to talk with the following staff members: * Larry Friedlander, Professor of English * Raymond Mcdermott, Professor of Education * Roy Pea, Professor of Education and the Learning Sciences * Daniel Schwartz, Associate Professor of Education * BJ Fogg, School of Education 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Experiential teaching–studying–learning processes; network-based mobile education (NBME); multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches; emotionality; trans-cultural knowledge co-creation; educational use of ICTs; Common European Framework of Reference for languages in teacher education; visualising and envisioning future foreign/second language education; using IDLEs (Integrated Distributed Learning Environments; groupware programs) in foreign/second language education 5. Your current contacts in Stanford? No contacts at the moment. In 1998, I visited with Professor Larry Friedlander and got familiar with Stanford Learning Lab.

23

Ms Heli Ruokamo, Full Professor, Director University of Lapland, Faculty of Education, Centre for Media Pedagogy heli.ruokamo@ulapland.fi, + 358 16 31 2410, +358 40 587 9090 (Mobile) www.ulapland.fi/HeliRuokamo 1. Who am I? Heli Ruokamo, Ph.D., is a professor of Education, specialty Media Education and Director of the Centre for Media Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at University of Lapland. Finland. Her research interests are in Teaching-Studying-Learning (TSL) processes, pedagogical models, principles of meaningful learning, design, implementation and evaluation of Network-Based Education (NBE) and Network-Based Mobile Education (NBME), and Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinary (MIT) research approaches. She has published approx. 100 professional publications in these areas. Heli Ruokamo is member of several boards in her field, e.g., the MOMENTS Consortium (funded by Academy of Finland and National Technology Agency of Finland, and Finnish Companies), Project, the Graduate School of Multidisciplinary Research on Learning Environments, and KasVi: A joint Finnish Virtual University project by the Finnish Faculties of Education (funded by Ministry of Education). She has coordinated and participated several national (ETÄKAMU, A&O, UOT, Let’s Play, MobIT LEVIKE) and international projects (NCAM, HBLE, IMPEL, UHI, JIBS) and organized several both national and international seminars and conferences and she is a chair the twelfth international NBE 2005 (former PEG) Conference. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I look forward to research-oriented collaboration regarding 1) network-based mobile education (NBME), 2) experiential and emotional teaching-studying-learning (TSL) processes geared towards trans-cultural knowledge co-creation, and 3) future-oriented research methodology. I am interested in discussing about future co-operation between researchers of SCIL/Stanford and MoMEx consortium. 3. Who would you like to meet? I would appreciate a chance to discuss with the following staff members: • Professor Raymond Mcdermott • Professor Roy Pea • Associate Professor Daniel Schwartz • Dr. Bridget Barron • BJ Fogg 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Experiential teaching-studying-learning processes; network-based mobile education (NBME); multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary research approaches; emotionality; trans-cultural knowledge co-creation; educational use of ICTs;

24

Full professor Jari Multisilta Tampere University of Technology, jari.multisilta@tut.fi, +358-40-8262747 Personal homepage: http://www.pori.tut.fi/~multisil/jari.html Full CV: http://www.pori.tut.fi/~multisil/multisiltacv.pdf Publications: http://www.pori.tut.fi/~multisil/multisiltapubl.pdf 1. Who am I? Jari Multisilta is the professor of multimedia in Tampere University of Technology, Information Technology at Pori, Finland. He got his M. Sc from the University of Tampere in 1992 in Mathematics and his Dr. Tech. at Tampere University of Technology in 1996. The title of his doctoral thesis was "Hypermedia Learning Environment for Mathematics". Prof. Multisilta has studied learning and modern communication and information technologies and has taken part in several research projects on this area. His research interests include applications of multimedia, distance and network based learning, mobile learning, mobile Internet technologies, and mobile communications and services. Professor Multisilta has published over 80 international conference papers and journal articles on his research area. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? Tampere University of Technology, Advanced Multimedia Center is a part of Moments and MoMEx consortiums. The main aim of these consortiums is to find out how network-based mobile education (NBME) mediates experiential teaching–studying–learning (TSL) processes geared towards a global model of trans-cultural knowledge co-creation. We are looking for an international research cooperation in the area of learning technologies and mobile learning. 3. Who would you like to meet? Roy Pea , CollaboraMath project & WILD project Terry Winograd , iSpace project Renate Fructer , Mobile Learners project 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Advanced Multimedia Center is lead by professor Multisilta. The aims of Advanced Multimedia Center are to: • Explore and develop human centered web technologies in order to support human activities with technology. • Teach and train professionals using problem based methods based on the research. • Apply knowledge in cooperation with national and international companies and research institutes. Research is emphasized on three areas: to explore human activities in technology rich environments, to study networked learning and usability issues (f. ex. navigation and educational gaming), and to study semantic web technologies. Multimedia applications and mobile technologies are in the focus of the research. TUT Pori is coordinator in the MOMENTS project, funded by Academy Of Finland and Tekes, the National Technology Agency, which aims to develop models and methods for future learning using mobile technologies (http://www.aka.fi/learn/). TUT Pori is also coordinating a project funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund. This project studies methods and technologies (mobile and wireless) that could be applied to support teachers in their work.

25

Research Fellow Henry Tirri, Nokia Research Center Full Professor of Computer Science, University of Helsinki Adjunct Professor of Computational Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology henry.tirri@nokia.com, +358 50 486 0372 http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/tirri/ 1. Who am I? I am a Research Fellow at Nokia Research Center with various areas of responsibilities from plain research to driving Nokia’s research strategies and international collaboration activities. I am (still) also a Professor of computer science at the University of Helsinki where I used to Head the Laboratory for Intelligent Systems. In addition to the regular PCs and Editorial Boards etc. some past life includes: • Visiting scholar, University of Texas at Austin and consultant, Microelectronics and Technology Corporation MCC; database transaction processing, functional languages and parallel processing (1985-86) • Visiting scientist, AT & T Bell Laboratories; neural networks stuff in machine vision (1988) • Visiting Associate Professor, Purdue University; research on distributed, object-oriented databases, neural networks, probabilistic modeling (1990-92) • Visiting scientist, NASA Ames Research Center; Bayesian modeling (1998) • Professor, University of Helsinki, Director of the Intelligent Systems Lab and CoSCo research group; Bayesian and information-theoretic modeling, intelligent learning environments (1998-) • co-founder of Ekahau Inc.; award-winning technology for positioning - Ekahau in news (2000-) • Visiting professor, Stanford University; positioning of mobile devices, ad hoc networks (2001-2003) • Visiting scholar, University of California, Berkeley; information retrieval and search engines (2003-2004) 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I am interested in finding out the possible collaborations Stanford could have with Nokia on various areas of interest – some computer science/engineering, some learning in much more multidisciplinary setting. 3. Who would you like to meet? I can arrange my own contacts but of course it would be nice to meet colleagues studying formal and empirical aspects of learning. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning My general research interests are related to intelligence in machines. As reasoning under uncertainty is one central aspect of intelligent behavior, the last 15 years I have been interested in fundamental questions related to building models from data, and performing (predictive) inference from such models. In this broad area my main focus is on probabilistic and information-theoretic approaches, both the theoretical properties and multidisciplinary applications. Recently I have been particularly interested in applying these modeling methods for information retrieval including search engines, collaborative behavior in e-learning environments and wireless sensor networks. In general I am interested in adaptive systems, and related notions of the above topics, such as context-awareness, community-based computing and data analysis for future networks in general.

26

5. Your current contacts in Stanford? I was for three years spending part of my year st CS Department at Stanford – thus I have many contacts to the school. ___________________________________________________________________________ Full Professor Mikko Sams Lab. of Computational Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology mikko.sams@tkk.fi, +358 50 521 5739 http://www.lce.hut.fi/ 1. Who am I? Academy professor, vice director of the Center of Excellence in Computational Complex Systems Research. Director of the Cognitive Science and Technology Research Group. 2. Who would you like to meet? Those doing research in relevant brain research. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Neural mechanisms of goal directed behavior. Plasticity of the human brain. Neural mechanisms of emotions. Neurocognition of audiovisual perception. ___________________________________________________________________________ Professor Riitta Hari Helsinki University of Technology hari@neuro.hut.fi, +358-9-451 2959 http://neuro.hut.fi 1. Who am I? My background is in clinical neurophysiology and medicine. Since 1982 I have been directing the Brain Research Unit (BRU) of the Low Temperature Laboratory and since 2003 the Advanced Magnetic Imaging Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland. With my colleagues I been developing all aspects of magnetoencephalography (MEG), with the main focus on studies of sensory and cognitive brain functions of healthy subjects and of various patient groups. I am a foreign member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I will be now just an observer, trying to understand what is going on in this field. 3. Who would you like to meet? I have already arranged one visit myself 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning I am especially interested in the temporal dynamics of human cortical signal processing. I have been studying sensory processing in dyslexic subjects, suggesting that they suffer from sluggish attentional shifting. My present brain imaging studies are related to nonverbal social interaction. We have observed disorders of imitation (a very important way to learn new skills) in autistic individuals and expect studies of interaction to have applications to various aspects of teaching. 5. Your current contacts in Stanford? Prof. Michael Merzenich, Prof. Describe shortly the co-operation! - communication about research topics; no common projects yet –

27

Full Professor Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, Director Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education Department of Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences University of Helsinki sari.lindblom-ylanne@helsinki.fi +358919120628 (office), +358400846672 (mobile) www.helsinki.fi/ktl/yty/ 1. Who am I? Sari Lindblom-Ylänne (1960) is full professor of higher education and director of the Centre for Research and Development in Higher Education at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She is a licensed psychologist and received her PhD in educational psychology. Sari Lindblom-Ylänne is a member of the Executive Committee of EARLI (European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction). She is a member of the Editorial Boards of Educational Research Review, Studies in Higher Education Journal and Advances in Learning and Instruction International Book Series. Furthermore, she has been an expert member of EU Tempus project “Strategic Management of Staff Development in Croatian universities”. Lindblom-Ylänne is a member of the Finnish Matriculation Examination Board and a member of the National Medical School Entrance Examination Board. 2. Who would you like to meet? Erno Lehtinen will organize programme for a small group of people. 3. List your current research activities specially related to learning Sari Lindblom-Ylänne has published international review articles in the following areas: 1) Selecting students for universities and the predictive value of entrance examinations 2) The relations between the learning environment and the student (constructive and destructive frictions) 3) Orientations to studying and study orchestrations 4) Conceptions of knowledge and learning (epistemologies, effect of discipline on conceptions, epistemological development) 5) Assessment and evaluation 6) Problem-based learning 7) Interaction skills 8) Academic writing 9) Technology, learning and teaching 10) Scholarship of university teaching (university pedagogy, approaches to teaching, discipline-specific approaches, effect of pedagogical training on approaches to teaching) 11) Counselling and supervising ___________________________________________________________________________ Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Professor Patrik Scheinin Department of Education Faculty of Behavioural Sciences University of Helsinki Patrik.Scheinin@Helsinki.Fi 358 50 5142100 or 358 9 191 20549 www.edu.helsinki.fi/ktl/patrikscheinin.htm 1. Who am I? Professor of Education, 1998- Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences Chair of the Commitee for Improved Instruction of the Faculty Chair of the Board for Student Admission of the Faculty Chair of the Commitee for International Affairs of the Faculty Deputy Chair of the Board of the Open University of Helsinki

28

Vice Director of the Department of Education Vice Director of the Centre for Educational Assessment 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I think we should take a look at informal and formal education at the system level to try to understand why some educational systems get better results than others. I would like to compare assessment of student potential and school results in different countries. 3. Who would you like to meet? Anyone interested in evaluation and assessment, comparative education, or student admission. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Lately my interests focus on evaluation and assessment. I am a member of the Centre for Educational Assessment. Representative nationals samples and the possibility for comparative studies have brought us national and international attention. Our projects cover the competence of school beginners, beliefs and skills at the end of the primary and lower secondary school, college and upper secondary school, as well as student admission evaluation in universities. The EU Learning to Learn indicator will be based on our tests and the Centre is responsible for the PISA 2006 study in Finland. ___________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Leenamaija Otala, Acting full professor Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Laboratory of Work Psychology and Leadership leenamaija.otala@tkk.fi, +358407004011 1. Who am I? I have lived for the past 20 year in the interface of academia and business. I have a long working history in industry. The last assignment was at Nokia where I was responsible for the strategy and corporate planning in mobile phone business. Before that I was responsible for training and education of Nokia Group. I have been involved in establishing and developing collaboration between European industry and universities. I joined the academia some 15 years ago with one foot in industry as a consultant and adviser. My teaching and research as well as my consulting work focus on leadership, competence and knowledge management, organizational learning, people management, and future work, and the company board work. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? I am specially interested in learning at work, specially when the work becomes distributed and mobile Continuous updating and upgrading of skills in the project and contingent work processes and methods/tools that can accelerate learning and creation of new knowledge in teams and groups of people, specially on a top level decision making where people often exclude themselves in all kinds of learning processes new reporting of companies including intangibles such as competence and intelligence Co-operation idea: In Finland we are advanced with the mobile technology which emphasizes the mobile working. dWork is increasing everywhere where knowledge work is dominating (like in Finland and in California). Mobile workers and project workers seldom have access to traditional employee training. How continuous learning of these people could be supported, what kind of skills and competencies they need and how their learning could be embedded in their work and how it could be supported. Distributed work is an additional challenge to management. What kind of skills do managers need to manage distributed work and workers but also what skills managers need to be able to support the learning of distributed workers?

29

3. Who would you like to meet? Experts who could discuss some/all of the topics of #7. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning 1. Board work – how to improve it I carry on company board evaluation processes and see there is a large need for learning and sharing of knowledge. However, at that level people seldom see the need by themselves. 2. Future work and its competence and learning demands Specially the demands based on mobile and distributed working. 3. Reporting of intangible assets such as people, knowledge, leadership, particularly reporting of intellectual capital and the impact in investments in intellectual capital to the value of the company ___________________________________________________________________________ Professor of Education Erno Lehtinen Vice Rector (Vice Chancellor) of the University of Turku +358 2-3338824 office +358 40-5117965 mobile phone erno.lehtinen@utu.fi users.utu.fi/ernoleh/english03.html LATEST EMPLOYMENTS 2003- Vice Rector of the University of Turku 1998-2000 Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Turku 1995- Professor of Education, University of Turku 1994 (January-December) Visiting Research Scholar, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, USA My main research projects are: Networked expertise (In collaboration with Kai Hakkarainen, Tuire Palonen, Leena Salminen and Sami Paavola; International collaboration eg. Hans Gruber) Computer supported collaboration in developing poverful learnin environments (In collaboration with Kari Nurmela, Kai Hakkarainen, Sanna Järvelä, Päivi Häkkinen, Kai Pata; International collaboration Erik de Corte, Robert Jan Simons) Problem and case based learning in technology assisted environments (In collaboration with Sirpa Lehti, Sami Salmi, Jussi Mertsola) Learning objects approch for developing educational technology (In collaboration with Sami Nurmi, Tomi Jaakkola, Liisa Ilomäki, Lassi Nirhamo; International collaboration: eg. Bob McCormik) Conceptual change in mathematics (In collaboration with Kaarina Merenluoto; International collaboration eg. Stella Vosniadou, Lieven Verschaffel ) Early development of number concept and mathematical thinking (In collaboration with Minna Hannula, Aino Mattinen and Pekka Räsänen; International collaboration eg. Elsbeth Stern) Motivation and metacognition in different learning environments (In collaboration with Marja Vauras, Pekka Salonen, Tuike Iiskala and Minna Vuorela) List your current research activities specially related to learning

30

Some articles in international scientific journals Pata, K., Sarapuu, T. & Lehtinen, E. (in press). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction. Hannula, M. & Lehtinen, E. (in press). Spontaneous focusing on numerosity and mathematical skills of young children. Learning and Instruction. Merenluoto, K. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change towards a systemic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 42 (5) 519-534. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared Metacognition in Peer Learning? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1 (2), 147-178. Merenluoto, K. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). The quality of conceptual change in mathematics: The case of number concept. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education 9 (2) 145-163. ___________________________________________________________________________ Full Professor Kristiina Kumpulainen University of California Santa Barbara, Gevirtz Graduate School o Education, USA University of Jyvaskyla, Faculty of Education, Finland krkumpul@education.ucsb.edu, +1 805 708 4965 www.norssiportti.oulu.fi/learn 1. Who am I? Dr. Kristiina Kumpulainen is currently affiliated with the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) where she works as a visiting professor. She co-directs the Cultural Landscapes Teaching and Learning Research Collaborative together with Dr. Ralph Cordova at UCSB. Dr. Kumpulainen has just recently been nominated as a full professor of school pedagogy at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. In the past, she has been directing the Center for Sociocultural Studies of Learning and Instruction at the University of Oulu, Finland. The research publications of Dr. Kumpulainen have appeared in Learning and Instruction, Instructional Science, International Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Experimental Education, Computers and Education, Computers and Writing, European Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Classroom Interaction and in a number of other journals, edited books, and conference proceedings. She also serves on several editorial boards, acts as a reviewer for a number of scientific journals and conferences as well as presents her work regularly at international venues. In recognition of distinction achieved in research, she has received a nomination for the outstanding publication award from the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) in the year 2003. Dr. Kumpulainen has recently served as a board member for the European Educational Teacher Education Network and a co-ordinator for the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) Special Interest Group (SIG) Social interaction in learning and instruction. In addition, she engages in active dialogue with several international and national scholars via her scientific activities, including invited keynote lectures and discussant roles in national and international scientific meetings. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe you co-operation idea? Sharing and building of theoretical and applied knowledge on learning sciences via collaborative and/or complimentary research. Establishing of research mobility programs for graduate education as well as for expertise sharing and development 3. Who would you like to meet? Experts and scholars representing research on learning sciences 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning

31

Dr. Kumpulainen has managed a number of research and development projects focusing on the social foundations of cognition, sociocultural theories of learning and teaching, classroom interaction research, collaborative learning and problem solving processes across disciplines and age groups, technology-enriched mathematics and science education as well as on teacher learning with digital video cases. The Academy Finland, the Cultural Foundation of Finland, and The European Union have funded her research programs. 5. Your current contacts in Stanford? Associate Professor Brigid Barron Professor Roy Pea • Do you have / have had research projects or other co-operation with this person? Describe shortly the co-operation! Yes, joint research interest in collaborative learning, technology-mediated learning and interaction research. A joint book project undergoing (Book title: Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action). Discussions undergoing about the application of DIVER in a progressive school community in California to support students’ and teachers’ academic and professional learning ___________________________________________________________________________ Architect, D.Sc. (Tech.) Aija Staffans, Helsinki University of Technology Helsinki University of Technology (TKK) Department of Architecture Laboratory of Urban Planning and Design http://www.tkk.fi/Yksikot/Osastot/A/ 1. Who am I? I am an architect and D.Sc. in Technology working as a researcher and teacher in the Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Architecture. My research interests focus on developing collaborative urban planning processes and the quality of daily environments, especially from housing point of view. Besides the academic work I conduct a Design Studio with one colleague. It is a way to keep touch to the practice of architecture. Our main interest is in Housing Design and Renovation. To mention some of my social activities, I am a member of the Executive Board of the Association of Finnish Architects, SAFA, and the Chair of the Executive Board of Helsinki Neighborhood Associations. 2. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe your co-operation idea? We look forward to finding partners interested in developing the learning environments connected to urban planning and design. 3. Who would you like to meet? Especially, I would like to meet Dr. Renate Fruchter and her research team in the PBL Laboratory. The information I have got from their learning environment is inspiring and I am waiting for the possibility of visiting there. 4. List your current research activities specially related to learning Our context to the discipline of learning is urban planning and design. The laboratory of Urban Planning and Design in TKK is, in cooperation with the Enterprise Simulation Laboratory SimLab conducting a research project called OPUS. With a vision of planning and design as a well-managed and facilitated learning process we carry on a three year research program supported by several methodological experiments (process simulation, participatory GIS, local internet forums, interactive process mapping etc.). In OPUS urban planning is examined as a communal learning process in which there is a continuous dialogue between the institutional conditions, political and professional ideals and norms, and the practices of everyday life.

32

Planning is a process of creating, collecting and managing knowledge. However, present planning processes don’t sufficiently bring together the residents’ local knowledge, based on daily life experiences, and the formal planning institutions based on expertise knowledge. The challenge is how to combine formal and informal knowledge and how to promote sharing knowledge between different actors. The research interests of our laboratory is, in the context of urban planning and design, 1. to develop urban processes towards better understanding of local knowledge and different meanings of a place and 2. to research urban processes as a part of places-based public policy. OPUS home page: http://opus.tkk.fi 5. Your current contacts in Stanford? Dr. Renate Fruchter. ___________________________________________________________________________ Ms Anna Kilpiö, Researcher anna.kilpio@hut.fi Tel: +358 9 451 5137 Mobile: +358 50 588 7210 I am a researcher at Helsinki University of Technology, in a multidisciplinary research and teaching unit SimLab. Since 2001 I have been working in Helmi project (Holistic Development of e-Learning and Business Models). The research focuses on teaching processes and practices of ICT utilization from different perspectives: changes in teachership, emerging e-Learning culture, product development innovations, ICT strategies, change management and service management in ICT supported teaching and learning. The researchers in Helmi project have conducted developmental action research and case studies in educational institutions and companies. I am preparing my dissertation on teachers’ technology relationship and their social representations, conceptions and everyday thinking about information and communication technologies. The objective is to describe both the content of teachers’ technology related conceptions, the ways teachers conceptualize novel technologies and the process of developing new conceptions in order to make sense of ICT and to use it innovatively. The dissertation belongs to the field of social psychology. My objective in Stanford is to create and develop networks and research collaboration related to web-based teaching and learning. I would be glad to visit Renate Fruchter and have further discussions after meeting her in SimLab in September. I would also be interested to follow the discussions about the implementation of the experiential teaching–studying–learning processes (MoMEx consortium). ___________________________________________________________________________ Research Manager Lauri Repokari MA (Cogn.Sci), Lic.Sc (Tech) BIT Research Centre Decode Research Group Helsinki University of Technology P.O. Box 9555, FIN-02015 HUT Finland Tel. +358 50 367 59 79, +358 9 451 4756 lauri.repokari@hut.fi Mr. Repokari received a master's degree from the Department of Psychology Cognitive Science) at University of Helsinki and a Licentiate of technology in Department of Computer Science at the Helsinki University of Technology. Mr. Repokari started his carrier as an entrepreneur and joined academia in 1997. His main areas of expertise are human-computer

33

interaction, cognitive ergonomics/requirements, small display user interfaces and usability. Mr. Repokari has published over 30 international review publications in conferences and journals and has participated in over 15 research projects as well as over 30 industrial R&D projects. Since 2003 Mr. Repokari is a Research Manager at HUT and is currently responsible for several national and international research projects. ___________________________________________________________________________ Researcer Heikki Haaparanta Tampere University of Technology, Pori / Advanced Multimedia Center I work as a researcher in Tampere University of Technology, Pori unit. (TUT, Pori) My basic education is classroom teacher and I have completed Master´s degree in education. (University of Turku 2001) After I graduated I worked for 2 years as elementary school teacher. Since 2003 I have been working as a researcher in TUT, Pori. Currently I am working in project that studies teacher’s use of technology in school context. What do you want to do with SCIL? I am interested about experimental research facilities in SCIL. I also want discuss about the current research topics of SCIL. Who would you like to meet? Roy Pea, Renate Fruchter ___________________________________________________________________________ Lic.Sc. Päivi Haho paivi.haho@tkk.fi Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SimLab research and teaching unit +358-50-5434010, +358-9-4515032 www.simlab.hut.fi 1. Who I am? I work as senior researcher and lecturer of Business Process Networks at Helsinki University of Technology. I am co-founder of the multidisciplinary Enterprise Simulation Laboratory SimLab, and developer of the SimLab™ process simulation method. Currently I am acting as the responsible director of KIMPPA research project. KIMPPA focuses on researching and developing networked welfare services in private and public partnerships. In addition, I have over ten years of work experience as consultant and project manager of international business process development and implementation projects in the business field preceding my academic carrier. 3. What do you want to do with SCIL/Stanford. Describe your co-operation idea? I would like to engage in research collaboration especially in experimentation and implementation of web-based networked learning in strategy processes. I also wish to visit the experimental research facilities, e.g. in the iRoom. 4. Who would you like to meet? Professor Renate Fruchter from PBL lab 5. List your current research activities specially related to learning 1) SimLab methods as a learning environment for individuals, groups, organizations and networks, 2) distributed and interactive process development and learning especially in networked welfare services in private and public partnerships, 3) inquiries and development of pedagogical methods to enhance students’ academic and expert skills in technology studies.