This workshop a i m s to bring together different experiences of various design approaches for active and early scaling up of the appropriation of tools and practices. There exists, many Design Research approaches for developing TEL, but synthesising these approaches into a systematic framework is rare, even more so for scaling the use of TEL to support informal work-based learning. We briefly describe the work of four cases: Integrative Learning Design Framework (ILDF), the Design Process for scaling agility, Co-design approach, and Agile approach. In the workshop we drive for the framework that enables aggressive scaling. The design approaches are described with the goal to point the similarities and challenges for forming a synthesised framework.
Copyright © 2013 for the individual papers by the papers' authors.
transcend the everyday life-worlds of users and permeate the workplace and its
practices. Design Research has been often introduced as a modern approach suitable
to address complex problems in educational practice for which no clear guidelines
or solutions are available [
The Integrative Learning Design Framework (ILDF) has the general intent of
generating research-based insights about informal or formal teaching, learning and/or
training situations as well as applied solutions that provide and inform practical
understanding and applicability to real-world design projects. The ILDF is a
designbased research model that incorporates design process efficiencies from multiple
disciplines such as instructional design, object oriented software development,
product development, and diffusion of innovations research. It aims to provide the
opportunities to leverage the design process as a vehicle for analysing, codifying and
documenting what is learned when the designed artefact is enacted in the context of the
design process. The progressive yield from iterative and connected research and
design cycles is often lost because it is not always carefully documented [
The aim of the Shared Conceptual Models for Agility in Interdisciplinary
Research is to support and enhance the collective knowledge development
(“knowledge maturing”) in organisations from various perspectives. To be able to do
this, an agile project management approach is adopted to integrate parallel design
teams, empirical activities (ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, case studies) as well
as evaluation and theory building. It has been found that Design Research fits very
well with agile methods for design of software systems, but agile methods encounter
challenges when they are scaled towards interdisciplinary research in larger teams.
Broad projects such as EU-projects (e.g. The MATURE project, http://mature-ip.eu/,
ended March 2012), have shown that such contexts of many parallel interdependent
activities necessitate trade-offs between (i) relevance and usefulness to practice, (ii)
research advances, and (iii) technological innovation. By taking the assumption of
Design Research seriously that the design process itself is a learning and
problematisation process that interweaves the deepening of understanding of a broader
concept and the design of tools, the projects are able to adopt a design process that is
iterative, spiral-shaped approach where in each cycle we have the same recurring
generic activities (prioritisation, investigation, design, evaluation). This iterative
process corresponds to sprints in the scrum methodology, but needs to take into
account the fact that there are parallel activities that have different timelines and
mutual dependencies. The core mechanism to achieve coherence between theoretical,
empirical, and design and implementation activities, and to foster negotiation
processes between conflicting interests, has shown to be a strong shared conceptual
model as a mediating artefact that continuously evolves. All activities are informed
by the model, and all activities feedback their results into the model [
The co-design taken as participatory design has been developed during a
decade of international research and development projects. In research-based design,
the artefact, which can include tools, are considered to be outcomes. The researcher
is the facilitator that guides the way to the outcomes. Certain phases can be
distinguished in the process, although, one of the most important aspects is that many
activities are going on in parallel, and often in the iterative cycles (to the previous
process the strongest difference being that co-design here underlines the activity of
end-users especially in the creative practices of designing the “tool”) [
In professional agile development in tool design the aim is to produce a
prototype which could be tested in a large scale evaluation process, and following
feedback, produce further iterations of the app which could be appropriate for a broad
base of work-based users, for example: military during deployment, NGO personnel
and aid workers, and those working in emergency relief1. Although an extended
period of prototyping is enabled, there are issues over the process of involving so many
stakeholders dispersed over many countries. Difficulties emerge surrounding direct
access to the intended user group. In effect, the research process is carried out with
the expert input of the main user groups with little contribution from others. It is
becoming increasingly clear, as users themselves become more “expert”, that to
design without their input will not result in a successful product. Making use of all
the research data gathered, the core project team develops the initial proposition, and
design, via an iterative process, early prototypes of how the mobile learning app
might look and function. This is complex process a n d i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o identify
single sources of content, or single functional requirements that would suit all
users. The ability to move quickly through rapid iterations in small teams is a key
attribute of the agile design process. [
The above approaches have similarities in their processes and aims. It could be said that differences are in the emphases of the approaches. The similarities that all approaches stress as important are: Iterative design cycles, The process itself is a learning and problematisation space; various activities go on in parallel and allow these to feed into each other and All stakeholders (end-users included) come along into the design process.
1 MoLE Project’s (Mobile Learning Environment) http://www.mole-project.net/research The challenges and differences that appear in these four processes are: Level of involvement of the stakeholder; Iteration scale varies from narrow to broad; Position of produced artefacts (the boundary and mediating or shared artefacts) varies; Meaning and position of research in the processes varies (research-based/design research) and how broadly the context and scaling is taken into account.
We have gathered potential starting points for synthesised framework. These points
are the following ones: there is a need for creating and agreeing on on the conceptual
model that provides the direction and aims for the design, development and research;
There is a need to find out ‘core principles’ of the design and research – these could
be based on the shared conceptual model; Deeper connection iterations based on the
feedback of end-users – aim is to have continuous evaluation; The stakeholders need
support in their Professional Learning Networks [
In the workshop after the description of the four approaches and, the above points work as staring part for the discussion and generating of experiences and previous ‘best practices’. After which, a joint effort to integrate these into framework is attempted. All required material are brought along to the workshop.