=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Towards a Design Research Framework for Designing Support Informal Work-Based Learning
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1047/paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-1047
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/BautersCCBSL13
}}
==Towards a Design Research Framework for Designing Support Informal Work-Based Learning==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1047/paper1.pdf
ECTEL meets ECSCW 2013: Workshop on Collaborative Technologies for Working and Learning, Sept. 21, 2013, Cyprus
Towards a Design Research Framework for Designing Support for
Informal Work-Based Learning
1
Bauters, M., 2Cook, J., 3 Colley, J., 4 Bannan, B., 5 Schmidt, A. and 1 Leinonen, T.
1
Aalto University, Finland, {merja.bauters, teemu.leinonen}@aalto.fi
2
University of the West of England, UK, john2.cook@uwe.ac.uk
3
Tribal Labs, UK, Jo.Colley@tribalgroup.com
4
George Mason University, USA, bbannan@gmu.edu
5
Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Germany, andreas_peter.schmidt@hs-karlsruhe.de
Abstract. 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 frame-
work 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.
Keywords: Design Research, Research-based design, Informal Learning,
Work-Based Learning
1 Background, problems and questions
In the workshop we will describe that the various Design Research approaches for
developing Technology Enhanced Learning or TEL (e.g. ILDF, Design Process, Co-
design a n d Agile approach), that are used in the Learning Layers project
(http://learning-layers.eu/). Learning Layers is a large-scale research project co-
funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme. Layers will de-
velop a set of modular flexible technological layers for supporting work-place prac-
tices in SMEs that unlock peer production and scaffold learning in networks of SMEs
into two sectors: health care and building and construction. There is a growing need
to scale the use of TEL to support informal work-based learning. Therefore, the con-
text of Learning Layers project, with its emphasis on scaling is relevant and good
grounds to test and develop new scaffolding and learning practices in work as well as
find the potential of tools to integrate the learning, work and context (used physical
artefacts). The tools and artefacts used provided by the new technologies have af-
fordances, which are in constant flux driven by a powerful interplay between tech-
nological innovation and emerging enacted cultural practices. Significantly, they
adfa, p. 1, 2011.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
Copyright © 2013 for the individual papers by the papers' authors.
ECTEL meets ECSCW 2013: Workshop on Collaborative Technologies for Working and Learning, Sept. 21, 2013, Cyprus
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 [1]. The approaches of: Integrative Learning Design
Framework (ILDF) and Shared Conceptual Models for Agility in Interdisciplinary
Research have been tested in previous projects for scaling and maturing of
knowledge (e.g. MATURE project http://mature-ip.eu/, ended March 2012). The-
se aspects are important to take into account because they enable the focus to
remain on aims other than tools and practice design. Especially scaling has
proved to be problematic in various EU-projects (e.g. KP-LAB project,
http://www.kp-lab.org/). Scaling is often related to uncovered drivers and obstacles
for adoption, which have to be found out. Knowing these aids the acceptance of inno-
vation and related processes early on in the design research cycle, which again will
aid opportunities for new modes of learning to scale beyond the local context. The
other two approaches: Co-design and agile process are intended to get the most
out of the design process. The first is focused more on ways of integrating all
stakeholders into the process to deepen engagement and ownership of the stake-
holders. Agile methods ([2, 3 and 4]) aim at being efficient in design and devel-
opment whilst still keeping the stakeholders involved. These two approaches
work hand in hand, with the emphasis on rapid iteration between establishing re-
quirements, designing alternatives, and building and evaluating prototypes. Through
the early and regular involvement of users, these approaches enable simultaneous
exploration of how users and the establishment of technical and pedagogical require-
ments work, but if the approaches fall into the technology-first approach they lose the
end-users/stakeholders voice. Gulliksen et al. [5] have identified that holistic design is
a key principle in designing for work and learning (learning in work). It explicitly
considers the work context, physical and social environment. The broader and deeper
insights into the users holistically has been highlighted in the UK, on issues surround-
ing the National Health Service’s ongoing National Programme for Information
Technology (see [6]). This holistic aspect is the one where the Integrative Learning
Design Framework (ILDF) and the Design Process for scaling agility can comple-
ment the other two selected approaches. Agile methods are mostly concerned with
end-user requirements, and often make the simplistic assumptions that: (a) suitable
users are available to interact with the development team and (b) the user require-
ments are congruent with broader organisational requirements. Thus, the focus on
interaction with individual users does not address the need for broader socio-technical
awareness in systems. These focus differences point out further needs for the more
holistic approaches, which ensure that the scaling, physical and social environment,
feelings and practices are taken into account. These should be integrated with the
Agile methods and co-design approaches. [2]
2 Design approaches
The Integrative Learning Design Framework (ILDF) has the general intent of
generating research-based insights about informal or formal teaching, learning and/or
ECTEL meets ECSCW 2013: Workshop on Collaborative Technologies for Working and Learning, Sept. 21, 2013, Cyprus
training situations as well as applied solutions that provide and inform practical un-
derstanding and applicability to real-world design projects. The ILDF is a design-
based research model that incorporates design process efficiencies from multiple
disciplines such as instructional design, object oriented software development, prod-
uct development, and diffusion of innovations research. It aims to provide the oppor-
tunities to leverage the design process as a vehicle for analysing, codifying and doc-
umenting 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 [7]. It is
expected that the design process for creating e.g., mobile social learning (content
and interactions) will offer several new opportunities to generate best practices and
guidelines for both co-design and design research. The claim of this approach is
that following the ILDF model will inherently result in documenting designs. The
approach consists of four phases (Informed Exploration, Enactment, Local Evalua-
tion and Broad Evaluation) and aims to solve the problem often encountered in tradi-
tional research of not capturing the research-based knowledge and important factors
relating to learning context, culture, and technology within the design process.
The aim of the Shared Conceptual Models for Agility in Interdisciplinary Re-
search 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 problema-
tisation process that interweaves the deepening of understanding of a broader con-
cept 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 ac-
count the fact that there are parallel activities that have different timelines and mutu-
al dependencies. The core mechanism to achieve coherence between theoretical,
empirical, and design and implementation activities, and to foster negotiation pro-
cesses 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 [8].
The co-design taken as participatory design has been developed during a dec-
ade of international research and development projects. In research-based design,
the artefact, which can include tools, are considered to be outcomes. The researcher
ECTEL meets ECSCW 2013: Workshop on Collaborative Technologies for Working and Learning, Sept. 21, 2013, Cyprus
is the facilitator that guides the way to the outcomes. Certain phases can be distin-
guished 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”) [9]; indeed one
may be required to go back to previous cycles. The process also claims to allow
different strands of design that are in different phases to go forward within the
same project. This is important to note because one of the advantages is that even
though there are strands that are on different phases these can potentially still feed
knowledge into each other due to the iterative nature of the cycles. The tolerance
for parallel design threads allows to change and take into account information and
end-users through-out the process. The main phases that can be distinguished are:
Contextual inquiry, Participatory design, Product design and Software prototype as
hypothesis phase. In co-design, artefacts, tools, and services are used as a means of
providing boundary and shared objects (mediated artefacts) to communicate between
different participants during design activities.
In professional agile development in tool design the aim is to produce a proto-
type which could be tested in a large scale evaluation process, and following feed-
back, 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 peri-
od 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. [10]
3. Towards a synthesised framework
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
ECTEL meets ECSCW 2013: Workshop on Collaborative Technologies for Working and Learning, Sept. 21, 2013, Cyprus
The challenges and differences that appear in these four processes are: Level of in-
volvement 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 [11] to build ownership for sustained
continuous work.
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 at-
tempted. All required material are brought along to the workshop.
References
1. McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. New
York: Routledge.
2. da Silva, T. S., Martin, A., Maurer, F., & Silveira, M. (2011). User-Centered Design and Agile Methods:
A systematic review. 2011 AGILE Conference IEEE. Retrieved from:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6005488
3. Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., Warsta, J., (2002). Agile Software Development Methods:
Review and Analysis (No. VTT 478). VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Oulu, Finland.
4. Boehm, B., Turner, R., 2004. Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the
Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
5. Gulliksen, J., Görannson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., Cajander, Å., (2003). Key principles
for user-centred system design. Behaviour & Information Technology 22 (6), 397–409.
6. Brennan, S., (2007). The biggest computer programme in the world ever! How’s it going? Journal of
Information Technology 22 (3), 202–211. Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley,
Chichester, UK.
7. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2009). The Integrative Learning Design Framework: An Illustrated Example
from the Domain of Instructional Technology. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An Introduction to Educa-
tional Design Research. Enschede,Netherlands; SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
8. Schmidt, A. and Kunzmann, C. (eds.) (2012). Knowledge Maturing – Creating Learning
Rich Workplaces for Agile Organizations. Project Report, 2012. http://knowledge- matur-
ing.com/files/whitepaper.pdf.
9. Leinonen, T. (2010). Designing Learning Tools: Methodological Insights. Ph.D. Aalto
University School of Art and Design. Jyväskylä: Bookwell.
10. Colley, J., Bradley, C., Stead, G. and Wakelin, J. (2012). Global MedAid: Evolution of an m-Learning
App for International Work-based Learners. Presented at mLearn 2012, Helsinki, and published in the
conference booklet.
11. Cook J. and Pachler N. (2012). Online people tagging: Social (mobile) Network(ing) Services and
Work-Based Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 43 No 5, 711–725.