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)
Cognitive perspective
Determine applicability of toolsEpistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)
Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?
Cognitive perspective
Determine applicability of toolsEpistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)
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?
Cognitive perspective
Determine applicability of toolsEpistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)
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?
Cognitive perspective
Determine applicability of toolsEpistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)
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?
Cognitive perspective
Determine applicability of toolsEpistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)
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?
Social perspective:Deployment considerations
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?
Social perspective:Deployment considerations
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