1 / 25

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

Researching the Practice of Design for Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social Perspectives. Liz Masterman, OUCS 27 th June 2006. Overview. Project aims and method Rationale for the framework The cognitive perspective: epistemic efficacy The social perspective: Activity Theory

wayne-barron
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Researching the Practice of Design for Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social Perspectives Liz Masterman, OUCS27th June 2006

  2. Overview • Project aims and method • Rationale for the framework • The cognitive perspective: epistemic efficacy • The social perspective: Activity Theory • Integration: a (tentative) framework for deploying tools

  3. Aims and method • Brief: • Investigate use of “non-LD inspired” tools in designing for learning • Aims: • Provide research-based information on use of tools in designing for learning • Synthesise data  • Applicability of tools used • Recommendations on effective deployment • Considerations for design and development of future tools • Construct toolkit for evaluating tools

  4. Aims and method • Focus • Learning activity authoring • “Generic” tools • Method • Online 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

  5. Rationale for an integrated framework • Wish to leave a durable legacy • Tools constantly evolving • Feedback based on limited experience • Usability a matter of personal preference and nature of task • Belief that theory is integral to effective design and implementation • Bring order to data • Provide cohesive basis for interdisciplinary design process • Opportunity to test transferability of previously tried approach

  6. Rationale for an integrated framework • Cognitive perspective • Focus on the individual • LAA as a planning task: produce representations • Social perspective • D4L inherently a social task • Practitioner 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)

  7. Cognitive perspective • Determine applicability of tools • Epistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996)

  8. Cognitive perspective Determine applicability of tools Epistemic efficacy (Peterson, 1996) Ontology-fit: Can you show all the elements of the “world” being represented + relationships?

  9. Cognitive perspective • Determine applicability of tools • Epistemic 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?

  10. Cognitive perspective • Determine applicability of tools • Epistemic 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?

  11. Cognitive perspective • Determine applicability of tools • Epistemic 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?

  12. Cognitive perspective • Determine applicability of tools • Epistemic 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?

  13. Cognitive perspective: Summary • No “one size fits all” tool, but a repertoire of more or less acceptable representations and tools • Specific tools can promote or impede LAA in relation to • Cognitive flow • Re-representation of emergent learning design • Examples • Mind-/concept-mapping for a) brainstorming, b) revealing structure of domain to students • Word processed tables for finished plan • Presentation tools elide LAA and LAR

  14. Make recommendations re effective deployment of tools for LAA Activity 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

  15. Cultural/psychological Technical/physical Tools Subject(s) Object Outcome Division of labour Community Social perspective:“Classical” Activity System Rules

  16. Cultural/psychological Technical/physical Tools Time Setting Subject(s) Object Outcome Division of labour Community Social perspective:“Extended” Activity System Rules

  17. 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?

  18. 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?

  19. Social perspective:Deployment considerations • Rules • Policies, strategies to promote effective practice? • Roles • Orchestrate collaborative LAA? • Support for learners as designers? • Time • Easy storage and retrieval? • Location: access to tools outside workplace • Licences for home use? • Off-line use of Web-based tools? • Run on mobile devices?

  20. 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-offs • Hence important to analyse existing practices in depth

More Related