We now have a publication date for this book: 4th April 2019.
We now have a publication date for this book: 4th April 2019.
After a long wait, our paper on “Instrumental Genesis in the Design Studio” has just been published in the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. For those without a library subscription, there’s free but read-only access here.
The theory of Instrumental Genesis (IG) accounts for the mutual evolution of artefacts and their uses, for specific purposes in specific environments. IG has been used in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) to explain how instruments are generated through the interactions of learners, teachers and artefacts in ‘downstream’ classroom activities. This paper addresses the neglected ‘upstream’ activities of CSCL design, where teachers, educational designers and educational technologists use CSCL design artefacts in specific design-for-learning situations. The paper shows how the IG approach can be used to follow artefacts and ideas back and forth on the CSCL design and implementation pathway. It demonstrates ways of tracing dynamic relations between artefacts and their uses across the whole complex of instrument-mediated activity implicated in learning and design. This has implications for understanding the communicability of design ideas and informing the iterative improvement of designs and designing for CSCL
Over the last few years, I’ve been claiming that there is a huge amount of educational design knowledge embedded in the working practices of experienced university teachers. This knowledge is very unevenly distributed and we need better ways of sharing it.
With colleagues Lucila Carvalho, Kate Thompson, Pippa Yeoman and others, I’ve tried to promote some ways of working on this problem. Among them is the ‘ACAD’ framework, which is meant to help designers think separately about – and then bring into some kind of harmony – task design, social design and the design (or setting in place) of material and digital tools and resources. In other words, design needs to attend to (a) what students are being asked to do, (b) how they should work together to do it, (c) what tools etc they’ll need (with some careful thought about what can be digital, what should be in material form and so on).
All of this design thinking needs to be understood as non-deterministic: design works indirectly – what students actually do at ‘learn time’ is what shapes the actual outcomes of the task they tackle. But that dependence on what students actually do doesn’t absolve the teacher-as-designer of the responsibility for thinking things through carefully. Far from it.
I’ve been writing and giving talks about this for 20 years or so. Sometimes people get it. Sometimes I feel they don’t. The ACAD framework and some of the thinking behind it can be found in my other design papers on this site. There’s also a really good new paper in the British Educational Research Journal by Lucila and Pippa.
But just a few minutes ago I read this post by Danica Savonick on the hastac website and it is just fabulous: both as an example of the careful thinking that has gone into the design and (selfishly) as an illustration of what we keep banging on about with ACAD.
Please take 5 and read it. You don’t need to be a literature teacher. You just have to care about students learning.
And bye-the-bye, it’s a lovely illustration of what we talk about in our ACAD shtick.
Two key points:
1) You don’t need ACAD (or any formalised model of ‘how to do design for learning’) to come up with a design like the one Danica Savonick is sharing. I understand her example has emerged from her own practice and quite likely has evolved over a few trials. It’s what designers can do, without knowing they are designing or thinking of themselves as designers (or wearing black clothes). I see lots of academics solving very complex design problems without positioning themselves as designers or drawing on ‘how to design for learning’ texts or methods. NB in saying this, I’m not taking anything away from what Danica Savonick has designed. I don’t know her and for all I know she has some background in ID. (I just don’t think that’s the case though. The example reads like a pure distillation of knowledge accumulated in practice rather than anything inflected with justifications from learning and design theory.) Whatever, it’s a lovely piece of design.
2) Most of the knowledge bound up in the example is what design theorists Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman call ‘knowledge of the real’ (rather than ‘knowledge of the (universally) true’). Of course, there is also ‘knowledge of the ideal’ – in the sense that Danica Savonick knows why this exercise is worth doing. But the design is replete with particulars– real things to get right – and has little truck with the illusory universal truths of learning theory. (“Group work is better than individual reflection”, “All classes should be flipped”, “Direct instruction beats discovery learning” etc.)
Nelson & Stolterman claim that design is the ‘first tradition’ in human development – before science and creative arts – and that it involves subtle inter-weavings of what is true, what is real and what is ideal. Skilled practice often involves design: we need to get better at recognising it and learning from it. Head for the hastac website now!
ACAD stands for ‘Activity-Centred Analysis and Design’
Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world(2nd ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.
Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2017). Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.
Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 0(0). doi:doi:10.1002/berj.3483
Abstract: This seminar will offer a preview of a book I’ve been writing with Rob Ellis. The book is due to appear in the Routledge SRHE (Society for Research in Higher Education) series next year. The talk, like the book, will fall into two halves. In the first half, I will share some results from a set of 54 semi-structured interviews carried out in 39 Australian universities with senior staff holding leadership responsibilities for Education, IT and Facilities/Estates: (typically, Deputy Vice-Chancellors (Education), Chief Information Officers and Directors of Estates). Among other things, this corpus of interview material indicates how difficult it is to integrate strategic thinking about teaching and learning, IT and learning spaces. In the second half, I will outline some ideas that may come together around the notion of educational ecology as an applied science. One practical purpose of this applied science is to provide a better framing for shared work on the integration of educational, IT and estates strategies. Some of the pieces being assembled in the second half of the book include: a shift to service design for activity systems; ecological accounts of educational processes and environments (from Urie Bronfenbrenner, Ron Barnett, Rose Luckin and others); action-oriented approaches to inquiry and research-practice partnerships
Here are the slides to accompany the talk at CRLI today.
And here are the notes pages, which have follow-up references
Preparing students for the workplace and assessing their readiness are often major challenges for university teachers. What kinds of concrete tasks help students develop professional capacities needed for situated knowledgeable action in a broad range of possible future workplace settings?
Our research examined assessment tasks that university teachers set for students in courses that were preparing them for work placements in five professions: nursing, pharmacy, teaching, social work, and school counselling. We combined ‘actionable knowledge’ and ‘objectual practice’ perspectives and investigated what students were asked to do, what they were expected to learn and how. Specifically, we analysed the nature of the objects that teachers selected for assessment tasks and the nature of the concrete artefacts that students were asked to produce.
Our results show some fundamental differences in teachers’ choices of objects. They ranged from basic and very specific aspects of professional work to some of the hardest and most broad-ranging challenges in the profession. The tasks also required students to engage in the production of a wide range of artefacts. We classified these as ‘cultural artefacts’, ‘conceptual artefacts’ and ‘epistemic artefacts’. Our discussion draws parallels between these three kinds of artefacts and the notions of ‘work ready’, ‘work knowledgeable’ and ‘work-capable’ graduates, respectively. We argue that teachers, through task designs, shape ways in which students learn to link action (skill) with meaning (knowledge). Our findings raise some important questions about the kinds of authentic tasks that help prepare work-capable graduates for future learning.
Keywords: Objectual practice, knowledge artefacts, assessment
The full paper is available in the HERDSA proceedings here.
The slides and notes for my lecture at the Deakin University Learning and Teaching conference last week – Thriving in higher education: how does good design help? – can be found here.
On the day after the lecture, Lina Markauskaite and I led two workshops.
Morning: Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the profession
Summary: This workshop is for academics, learning designers and academic leaders who work with developing assessment tasks across the spectrum of work integrated learning initiatives. Participants are asked to come with an assessment task that they have used, or plan to use, for students preparing for, or reflecting on, a work placement, practicum or simulated work experience. The workshop will explore how these types of assessment tasks create a dialogue at the boundary between academic discipline knowledge and the reflexive knowledge of a skilled practitioner. Peter and Lina will draw on their recent work on epistemic fluency to introduce the workshop. They have analysed a range of assessment task designs in a variety of professional education contexts to try to identify the multiple forms of knowledge and ways of knowing with which students have to become fluent in preparing for professional practice. Many aspects of professional work involve the creation of new understandings – such as in inter-professional dialogues or client consultations. Often this epistemic work goes unnoticed, though sometimes it involves conscious problem-solving and innovation. The workshop will be a hands-on investigation of how these ideas about epistemic fluency, knowledge work and actionable knowledge can be applied in designing better assessment tasks.
Afternoon: Working in the third space: how do we explain and strengthen what we do?
Summary: ‘Design for learning’ is still not a widely or deeply understood concept in universities, even though most universities employ a variety of people with titles like “Learning designer”.
The capabilities that underpin good design work are rarely articulated and have little institutional visibility. This workshop is for learning designers, academics and academic leaders who need to explain the role of design in learning and teaching. The workshop will explore the following questions: How do we articulate what we have to offer in and through design? How can we further strengthen the university’s design capabilities – given what we can see about the future of learning and teaching and new insights emerging from research across the learning sciences?
Some of these issues are being pursued, at a national level, in the ascilite TELedvisors SIG.
Here are slides & notes from my presentation at the 50th anniversary celebration for the Dept of Educational Research at Lancaster University, 22nd Sept 2017.
Here’s a link to the slides for my ALTC keynote. In the notes you will also find additional comments, ideas, references and recommendations for further reading.
Here are some papers associated with the themes of my recent podcast interview with Jason Lodge and Mollie Dollinger.
Teaching as design (Goodyear 2015)
In medias res: reframing design for learning (Goodyear & Dimitriadis 2013)
I received a request for this paper earlier today. It started life as a keynote at the Networked Learning conference in Lancaster in 2006. Maria Zenios visited us in Sydney later that year, and we were able to work together and develop a more extensive treatment of the issues. We used a recent paper in BJES by Effie MacLellan as a springboard. We combined ideas from Stellan Ohlsson, Allan Collins, Dave Perkins and Carl Bereiter to introduce epistemic tasks, forms, games and fluency. Then we linked this with research on learning through discussion by Helen Askell-Williams and Michael Lawson and by Rob Ellis and myself, to distinguish between weaker and stronger forms of collaborative knowledge building. If you’re serious about helping students prepare for work in complex knowledge creating jobs, then you need the stronger form.
I hadn’t reread this paper for a while, and I think it still stands up quite well. As of today, it’s had 87 citations, not all of them by me. I’m also glad to see that research on learning through discussion in higher education has been growing in the last 10 years. The literature was quite thin in 2006/7.
In 2008, Lina Markauskaite and I wrote a grant proposal that allowed us to do some of the ‘cognitive anthropology’ hinted at in this paper. The outcomes, and a much richer understanding of matters that were only sketched in the BJES paper, can be found in our ‘magnum opus’ – Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.