Researching the Practice of Design for Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social Perspectives Liz Masterman, OUCS 27 th June 2006

Researching the Practice of Design for Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social Perspectives

Liz Masterman, OUCS27th June 2006

Overview

Project aims and methodRationale for the frameworkThe cognitive perspective: epistemic efficacyThe social perspective: Activity TheoryIntegration: a (tentative) framework for deploying tools

Brief:Investigate use of “non-LD inspired” tools in designing for learning

Aims:1. Provide research-based information on use

of tools in designing for learning2. Synthesise data

• Applicability of tools used• Recommendations on effective deployment• Considerations for design and development of

future tools

3. Construct toolkit for evaluating tools

Aims and method

Aims and method

FocusLearning activity authoring“Generic” tools

MethodOnline questionnaire

• 70 responses• Quantitative + some qualitative data• Current practice

One-day workshops• Lesson design session + interviews, group

discussions, logs of tool usage, lesson plans• 39 participants• Qualitative data• Case studies of practice + impact of novel tools

Rationale for an integrated framework

Wish to leave a durable legacyTools constantly evolvingFeedback based on limited experienceUsability a matter of personal preference and nature of task

Belief that theory is integral to effective design and implementation

Bring order to dataProvide cohesive basis for interdisciplinary design process

Opportunity to test transferability of previously tried approach

Rationale for an integrated framework

Cognitive perspectiveFocus on the individualLAA as a planning task: produce representations

Social perspectiveD4L inherently a social taskPractitioner part of a community with own norms and roles

Complementary approaches:Culture as the “overarching context of cognitive development”, not a variable within it (Gauvain 1996)

Cognitive perspective

Determine applicability of toolsEpistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)



Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?



Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?Task-fit: How useful and appropriate is the representation to the task?



Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?Task-fit: How useful and appropriate is the representation to the task?Process-fit: Does the representation facilitate internal processes?



Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?Task-fit: How useful and appropriate is the representation to the task?Process-fit: Does the representation facilitate internal processes?User-fit: Does the representation suit the person using it?



Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?Task-fit: How useful and appropriate is the representation to the task?Process-fit: Does the representation facilitate internal processes?User-fit: Does the representation suit the person using it?Circumstance fit: Is the representation affected by physical conditions; how usable is the tool?

Cognitive perspective: Summary

No “one size fits all” tool, but a repertoire of more or less acceptable representations and toolsSpecific tools can promote or impede LAA in relation to

Cognitive flowRe-representation of emergent learning design

ExamplesMind-/concept-mapping for a) brainstorming, b) revealing structure of domain to studentsWord processed tables for finished planPresentation tools elide LAA and LAR

Social perspective

Make recommendations re effective deployment of tools for LAAActivity Theory (Leont’ev 1981; Engeström, 2004)

Analyse “contextually embedded practice” (Issroff & Scanlon, 2002)Human activity carried out within a community (even if physically alone)Mediated by:

• Culturally evolved tools (cultural + technical)• Rules (procedures, conventions, norms)• Division of labour

Social perspective:“Classical” Activity System

RulesDivision of labour

Subject(s) Object Outcome

Community

Tools

Cultural/psychologica

l

Technical/physical

Setting

Social perspective:“Extended” Activity System

RulesDivision of labour

Subject(s) Object Outcome

Community

Tools

Cultural/psychologica

l

Technical/physical

Time

Social perspective:Deployment considerations

Subject(s): practitioner(s)How can tools help develop expertise?

Object and transformation into outcome: learning design

Can tool accommodate multiplicity of paths through the activity?

Communities:How to foster communities within institution?Existence of supportive communities outside institution?


Tools in relation to……Practitioners

• Process-fit, user-fit, circumstance-fit?• Level of IT expertise required?

…Object (design of learning activities)• Ontology-fit, task-fit?

…Communities• Efforts being made to elicit practitioners’

requirements for tools?• Creation and support of user community?• Does tool facilitate sharing of learning designs?


RulesPolicies, strategies to promote effective practice?

RolesOrchestrate collaborative LAA?Support for learners as designers?

TimeEasy storage and retrieval?

Location: access to tools outside workplaceLicences for home use?Off-line use of Web-based tools?Run on mobile devices?

Conclusion

Framework for designing and deploying D4L tools

Cognitive theories provide a set of principles for appraising ERs and tools (e-, non e-)Activity Theory provides a framework for interpreting the social context in which LAA takes place

Provisional — has not been tested!Focus on “enabling” features — but new tools can also involve trade-offsHence important to analyse existing practices in depth

Documents

Researching the Practice of Design for Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social Perspectives Liz Masterman, OUCS 27 th June 2006