Analysing and supporting the process of co-designing inquiry-based and technology-enhanced learning...
description
Transcript of Analysing and supporting the process of co-designing inquiry-based and technology-enhanced learning...
Analysing and supporting the process of co-designing inquiry-based and technology-enhanced
learning scenarios in higher education
Iolanda Garcia, Elena Barberà, Xavier Pujol & Mireia Usart (eLearnCenter, UOC)Anna Escofet, Marc Fuertes, Begoña Gros, Marta López & Ingrid Noguera (UB)
Meritxell Cortada & Marta Marimón (UVIC)
Design2Learn Project EDU2012-37537 Plan Nacional I+D+i.
http://design2learn.wordpress.com/
Content
• Overview and rationale of the project
• Aims• Methodology• Research instruments • Preliminary results• Discussion
Design2Learn project
Aims to study the development of learning scenarios that are more authentic, contextualised and focused on learners, through a co-design process involving students and teachers in the negotiation of the design principles of such scenarios
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
• Inquiry Based Learning • Technology Enhanced
Learning
The design is by nature iterative and collaborative. It requires discussion, reflection, critique and implementation, so it works better in teams in which there is a complementarity of skills and knowledge. Being a cognitively demanding task, it requires tools and representations that allow for abstraction to be managed and understood (Goodyear &Retalis, 2010)
Assumptions1. Co-design processes involving students and teachers can
facilitate the adoption of an inquiry-based learning model mediated by a more mature and autonomous use of technology by students in open and networked environments.
2. Students’ participation in the co-design process can integrate their perspective promoting deeper learning.
3. The use of tools for representing teaching and learning practice, can facilitate the co-design process.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
RQ1. What is the role of representation instruments in supporting a co-design process (case stories, design patterns, storyboards and diagrams) of IB and TE/networked learning scenarios?
RQ2. How are participants’ roles and levels of intervention negotiated, assigned and managed throughout the co-design process?
RQ3. What are the stages and critical issues to consider in the process of co-design?
Design-Based Research
A systematic, but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practice through iterative analysis, design, development and implementation, based on collaboration between researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories.
Wang and Hannafin, 2005
CONTEXTUALISE & EMPATHISE
PROBLEMATISE &DEFINE
DOCUMENT& IDEATE
CONCEPTUALISE & PROTOTYPE
IMPLEMENT & ASSESS
Identify problem/s
related with teaching/ learning practice,
define and operationalise
the design challenge to
address
Get involved to know the
participants’ context and needs, build
common ground and
understanding. Reflect and
share issues in your practice
Explore other experiences and decide
suitable design principles and pedagogical approach. Generate
variety of ideas to address the
design challenge
Conceptualize a learning
scenario able to solve the
design challenge and turn it into a visual and
tangible model that can be
implemented and tested
Implement the prototype in real context, monitor and
collect feedback about the learning
experience. Assess, reflect and improve the designed
scenario
iterate – document – reflect – refine – iterate …
Design-based research framework
Problem finding Problem solving Solution testing
Theory-practice loop
8 learning subjects• Two different
university models: online and blended
• About 4 UOC / 4 UB teachers
• About 16 students with different profiles
• Different disciplines
Teachers as designersas guides and facilitatorsas researchers Teacher professional development
Students as designers (listening to student voice) as producersas researchersStudent engagementLearning agency and control
Co-design context
Research plan
Reported period
Co-design process
Co-design process Mediating artefacts to represent practice
•Narratives•Concept and force mapping•Matrices and templates•Storyboards•LD tools •Diagrams•Design patterns
CONTEXTUALISE & EMPATHISE
PROBLEMATISE &DEFINE
DOCUMENT& IDEATE
CONCEPTUALISE & PROTOTYPE
IMPLEMENT & ASSESS
WORKSHOPS 3-4
Instruments:. Template design challenge. Forcemap. Matrix problems/solutions
WORKSHOPS 1-2
Instruments:. Case story. Matrix problems/design principles. Concept mapping. Vocabulary (IBL based). Guidelines reflective questions. Open visual representation
WORKSHOP 5
Instruments:. Matrix problems / solutions. Template IBL based scenario
WORKSHOPS 6-7
Instruments:. Storyboard (paper prototyping). Diagram Compendium LD (paper prototyping)
WORKSHOPS 8-11
iterate – document – reflect – refine – iterate …
September 2014 ----------------------------------------------- February --------------July
Problem finding Problem solving Solution testing
Theory-practiceloop
Research instruments and analytical framework
- Post-workshop questionnaire (broad open question + Likert)
- Observation
RQ1: data analysis
RQ1. What is the role of representation instruments in supporting a co-design process (case stories, design patterns, storyboards and diagrams) of IB and TE/networked learning scenarios?
WORKSHOP 1INSTRUMENTSCase story
WORKSHOP 1 Matrix problems/design principlesWORKSHOP 1 Concept MappingWORKSHOP 2/3 Vocabulary (IBL based)WORKSHOP 2/3 Guidelines /reflective questions (IBL / TEL based)WORKSHOP 2/3 Open visual representationWORKSHOP 3 Video (connectivism)WORKSHOP 4 Template (design challenge)WORKSHOP 4 ForcemapWORKSHOP 4 Matrix problems/tentative solutionsWORKSHOP 5 Template (IBL based scenario)WORKSHOP 6 Storyboard (paper prototyping)WORKSHOP 7 Diagram Compendium LD (paper prototyping)
CATEGORIESEase of use
Concept clarification
Meaning negotiation
Reflection own practice
Practice / problems sharing
Solutions elicitation / brainstorming
Expert knowledge sharing
Discussion and decision taking
Learning scenarios instantiation / prototyping
Learning scenarios sharing / communicating
Design principles integration IBL
Design principles integration NL/TEL
Qualitative analysis:
- Workshops observation- Perception questionnaire
RQ1: Findings
• Instruments were very useful to support the co-design process, although they need to be used in combination.
• Using too many instruments/guidelines in the same activity/session is counterproductive.
• Need to improve the instruments used in the ideation phase: brainstorming and ideas generation.
• Intruments need to address more directly the design principles, specially the TEL ones.
• The prototyping process helps to systematise practice, specially for less experienced teachers.
• Need to rethink prototyping session with Compendium LD in order to get a better value of visual representation.
RQ1: Teacher’s comments (perception questionnaire)
“I think the hassle of completing the story board is compensated by having an explicit, clear and comprehensive representation of all the elements involved”. (A)
“The definition of a set of scenes and a number of characteristics of each scene makes what needs to be defined perfectly dimensioned. On the other hand, let’s first outline the general structure to go deeper into each scene afterwards”. (X)
"The meeting was very similar to the previous one. I do not see much difference between information that is provided for each scene and the overview that gives each scene separately”. (R)
“The use of a graphical modelling system seems like a good idea and should facilitate the task. However, semantic relations among components are not clear and to what extent this tool complements or replaces the one previously employed.” (R)
RQ2 & RQ3: data analysis
Qualitative analysis
- Workshops observation- Perception questionnaire
RQ2. How are participants’ roles and levels of intervention negotiated, assigned and managed throughout the co-design process?
RQ3. What are the stages and critical issues to consider in the process of co-design?
A Co-design GROUP DYNAMICS B Co-design CORE
A1 Attitude B1 Key issues
A2 Intervention B2 Design principles
A3 Decision taking B3 Tasks
A4 Conflicts B4 Emerging concepts / ideas
A5 Moderation B5 Problems / Difficulties
A6 Role taking B6 Reflective practice
A7 Collaboration B7 Time management / Stages
RQ2 & RQ3: Findings
• Importance of group configuration, anticipating absences, etc.
• Group dynamics can be very different depending on participant teachers and researchers. At least 2 teachers involved per each context.
• The design always sits in a certain context and participants have difficulty in abstracting and thinking in more general terms.
• It is important to avoid keeping the focus on the subject content, especially in teamwork among teachers.
• It is useful to clarify concepts and practices associated with design principles and recall them frequently.
• Researchers must be knowledgeable of the dynamics and the correct use of the tools to redirect the process. Mistakes are not always discussed in sufficient depth or doubts not enough clarified.
RQ2 & RQ3: Findings
• Great opportunity for reflective practice and for problem sharing.
• The structure of the sessions is a key aspect to ensure progress: avoid spliting tasks between sessions, include a space for sharing and for reflecting on what was done.
• Short tasks with mixed groups work better. Tasks that are too long hinder productive discussion and emergence of new ideas.
• The final stage involves reflection and writing development outside the sessions and costs more to be completed.
• TEL design principles are more difficult to implement: the problem is placed in the virtual campus (UB / UOC).
“I think it's very appropriate to use concrete tasks with an allocated time as it gives flexibility and facilitates everyone’s participation”. (F)
“The time setting should be improved as when we started discussing the results of the previous week there were gaps in some aspects not remembered. It could have been avoided if we had finished in the previous session”. (F)
“The application of the IBL methodology proves to be a good tool to propose new ways of targeting teaching. Almost without realizing it, we are proposing highly innovative activities, in my case I am totally rethinking the orientation of a subject. This generates high degree of uncertainty”. (R)
“These important methodological changes inevitably lead to rethinking the role of the teacher. Perhaps there should be a more explicit alignment between the methodology and the teaching model”. (R)
RQ2 & RQ3: Teacher’s comments
“It has been very instructive to know other teaching experiences and highlight commonalities in the various stories, despite the diversity of subjects”. (X)
“The session has been very useful to analyze the real causes of some problems and the factors that may influence them. The methodology is particularly effective to reveal complex relationships between various elements that apparently might seem disconnected”. (R)
“To relate our experiences with specific principles (design principles) helps organize thinking, but it can also be somewhat forced”. (A)
“I would say I worked very naturally, and do not identify substantial differences in the way teachers design activities normally. I mean in the sense that the design principles, if we are incorporating them, we did it naturally, without worrying too much or remembering to check whether we were considering them”. (A)
RQ2 & RQ3: Teacher’s comments
Results RQ2 & RQ3 (perception questionnaire)
Evolution of the perception of UOC teacher across the workshops (F)
Likert scale (1-5)
Results RQ2 & RQ3 (perception questionnaire)
Evolution of the perception of UB teacher across the workshops (X)
Likert scale (1-5)
Results RQ2 & RQ3 (perception qüestionnaire)
Evolution of the perception of UOC teacher across the workshops (F)
Likert scale (1-5)
General conclusions
• Need to identify the design activities and instruments used and stimulate reflection on their function and usefulness in the different sessions.
• Difficulty of progressing in analysing data to fuel the co-design process as it develops.
• It is difficult for researchers to stand and reflect on their own role/performance in the co-design process.
• Importance of sharing/discussing findings with participants.
General conclusions
“The key tensions of co-design persist across phases: teachers never have enough time”.
“The social dynamic between teachers and researchers evolves over time, particularly with regard to agency and ownership. In the beginning, teachers did not begin with a strong sense of ownership in the project or a clear sense of the roles that they would play”.
“A key benefit of engaging the teachers in co-design was professional development. The co-design process offered teachers a chance to develop and refine their own ideas about teaching”.
(Roschelle & Penuel, 2006)
“Personally throughout the session I felt increasingly motivated and I think the other group members too. One expression of this is that we all felt that the time had passed so quickly”. (X)
“The main motivation is to detect an improvement in each session and begin to shape an activity applicable in the next academic year”. (X)
“This systematic reflection on our work is something we have little opportunity to do, surely we miss it with frequency, and when we do, it is in a very intuitive way, very focused on solving the specific problem right now, but without such a global view of the relationships between the different elements involved and the time to resolve them”. (A)
RQ2 & RQ3: Teacher’s comments
Thank you very much!
Iolanda Garcia & Begoña Gros [email protected] / [email protected]
Design2Learn Project EDU2012-37537 Plan Nacional I+D+i.
http://design2learn.wordpress.com/