Designing Learning Tools Methodological Insights

Designing Learning Tools Methodological Insights Teemu Leinonen Department of Media, Media Lab Aalto University School of Art and Design Aalto University School of Art and Design Publication series A 111 www.taik.fi/bookshop © Teemu Leinonen Graphic design: Mikko Varakas Figures in the articles by the authors. ISBN 978-952-60-0031-2 (print) ISBN 978-952-60-0032-9 (pdf) ISSN 0782-1832 Printed at Bookwell Ltd. Finland, Jyväskylä, 2010 Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS — 5 1. INTRODUCTION — 9 1.1. Learning Tools in Context — 11 1.2. Research Questions and Methodology — 19 2. TOOLS DESIGNED — 23 3. RESEARCH ARTICLES — 29 4. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK — 35 4.1. Technology and Tools: Disturbing, Pragmatic and Free — 36 4.2. Knowledge Interests: Hermeneutic Emancipation — 45 4.3. Design Thinking: Solving Wicked Problems in a Participatory Way — 49 5. SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS — 54 5.1. Research-based Design Process — 56 5.2. Design as Informed Guessing — 64 5.3. Interaction of Knowledge Intentions in Design — 68 6. DISCUSSION: TOWARDS ACADEMIC PRACTICE-BASED DESIGN RESEARCH OF LEARNING TOOLS — 71 REFERENCES — 78 ARTICLES ARTICLE 1: Design of web-based collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface — 84 ARTICLE 2: MobilED - Mobile Tools and Services Platform for Formal and Informal Learning — 114 ARTICLE 3: Information Architecture and Design Solutions Scaffolding Authoring of Open Educational Resources — 142 ARTICLE 4: Learning in and with an Open Wiki Project: Wikiversity’s Potential in Global Capacity Building — 176 ARTICLE 5: Software as Hypothesis: Research-Based Design Methodology — 202 Contents Designing Learning Tools - Methodological Insights 4 Acknowledgments According to Lev Vygotsky all higher ly duties in order to focus on my re- mental functions originate as actual search in South Africa, California and relations between human individu- in Finland. I am grateful to Juha Var- als. Another Russian thinker, Mikhail to from the Department of Art (Art Ed- Bakhtin has said that any true under- ucation) who read the manuscript and standing is dialogic in nature. Con- gave a number of comments and to Mart- sequently many people — scholars, ti Raevaara with whom I have exchanged colleagues, friends and family — have ideas related to the use of ICT in ed- provide me with the human relations ucation over many years. needed to complete work of this kind. This dissertation is a result of the I have worked in several projects with dialogues with these people. researchers of the Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Andrea Botero has helped me to un- Building at the Department of Psychol- derstand design and designers. As a ogy, University of Helsinki. Kai Hak- colleague and a partner, her contri- karainen’s thoughts and ideas have bution to the project has been cru- had a great impact on me. I am truly cial. In addition to leading me to the grateful for having had the possibil- world of design she has encouraged me ity to work with his group. The Doc- to continue in times when I have been toral Programme for Multidisciplinary ready to give up. Luna Leinonen Botero Research on Learning Environments, has played a similar role: teaching lead by Erno Lehtinen and the Inter- me, playing with me and providing me active Technology in Education (ITE) a hiding place when needed. Without –conference have been important na- Mikko Leinonen’s contribution — in- tional frameworks and supporters of my sightful comments and questions — the research and design work. manuscript would never have been com- pleted. In 2006-2007 the Meraka Institute / CSIR, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of The design work presented in the dis- Finland and Nokia Corporation support- sertation was from most part carried ed my research in South Africa. I am out in the Learning Environment Re- especially grateful to Merryl Ford and search group of the Media Lab Helsin- the school teachers and pupils of the ki. I am grateful to a number of past Cornwall Hill College and Irene Mid- and current members of the group, es- dle School. In 2008 I was a visiting pecially Samu Mielonen, Tarmo Toik- fellow at SRI International in Men- kanen, Jukka Purma, Hans Põldoja and lo Park, California. During my time in Katrina Silfvast. SRI I got a chance to share ideas with a number of smart people to whom I owe Media Lab Helsinki has been my uncon- my deepest gratitude. ventional academic home. Philip Dean, had belief in me and my research area Last, but not least, I am grateful to over many years. Many of the earlier my supervisors, Pirita Seitamaa-Hak- design projects described in this dis- karainen and Nitin Sawhney and my pre- sertation have been developed in close examiners Jarmo Viteli and Cesar Nunes collaboration with him. Mauri Kaipai- who took the time to review my manu- nen and Lily Diaz have provide the script and gave important comments and research framework necessary to com- feedback. plete the doctoral degree. I am grateful to all the Media Lab staff members Finally, there are many others — par- and many of the students who have made ticipants of the participatory design me think. I am especially grateful to workshops, colleagues of the Europe- Pet ri Lankoski for important comments an research projects, Wikimedians and on earlier versions of the manuscript. active people in the ICT in education blogosphere — to whom I owe a debt of I am also grateful to Riina Vuori- gratitude. kari and Tuukka Tammi for reading and commenting on early versions of the While I am extremely grateful to the manuscript. I also want to show my people with whom I have had a change gratitude to Tere Vadén and Juha Suo- to engage in dialogue, to do research ranta with whom I have had the plea- with and who have assisted me ma- sure to think and write together. ny ways, I wish to clarify that all the possible errors in the disserta- The Aalto University School or Art and tion are mine alone. Also the inter- Design (previously the University of pretations and results presented in Art and Design Helsinki) has support- the dissertation remain, of course, my ed my work since 1998. The leadership own. of the School, Yrjö Sotamaa and Hele- na Hyvönen, gave me the opportunity TEEMU LEINONEN to take leave of absence from my dai- Kallio, Helsinki, October 2010 Acknowledgments 5 Designing Learning Tools - Methodological Insights 6 1. INTRODUCTION page 9 2. TOOLS DESIGNED A page 23 3. RESEARCH ARTICLES page 29 4. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK page 35 5. SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS page 54 6. DISCUSSION: TOWARDS ACADEMIC PRACTICE-BASED DESIGN RESEARCH OF LEARNING TOOLS page 71 Designing Learning Tools - Methodological Insights 7 8 Designing Learning Tools - Methodological Insights 1 Introduction Learning tools are everywhere. We may learn from everything around us. Many objects found in nature and a great multitude of man-made cultural artifacts can be considered as tools that can be used for learning. We learn — in other words changes in our cognitive structures and behavior come about — when we use different objects as tools. It is important, however, to emphasize that not all objects are learning tools, though not only learning tools can be used as tools for learning. The key concepts of this study arelearning tools and design methodology. What is a learning tool? Säljö (1999) pointed out how throughout history people have developed tools to solve intellectual and practical problems and how learning can be studied precisely as a process of using these tools. In relation to discussion about distributed intelligence, Pea (1993) claims that tools literally carry intelligence in them, that they are major carriers of patterns of previous reasoning and can be used by new gener- ation with little of no awareness of the struggle that went into designing them. Besides a multiplicity of different artifacts for different intellectual and practical purposes, all human cultures have arguably also produced artifacts specifically designed for the purpose of learning. Erik Ahlman, a Finnish cultural philosopher, discerns four grounding features of a tool used by a culture (Ahlman, 1976, p. 105). Ahlman ob- serves a cultural tool from the four basic viewpoints of its being: 1 — Introduction 9 1 used by people; 2 produced or put into use by people consciously; 3 disseminated for general use among people, and 4 used continuously by people. Following Ahlman, the concept of a learning tool as a cultural tool has a necessary logical connection to the ideas of conscious purpose and itera- tive usage. Cultural tools are constantly created by cultures to carry out specific tasks, to serve some particular acknowledged purposes (Ahlman, 1976, pp. 106-107). When viewing formal schooling and its history, we can easily recog- nize certain artifacts designed specifically for teaching and learning, such as blackboards, pointers, mechanical and digital simulations, and learning games. It is worth emphasizing that the focus of this study is on those cultural tools or artifacts that are specifically designed for learning. The main interest of this study is in exploring the design of advanced computer-related learning tools. What is methodology? The concept ofmethodology refers mostly to the philosophical principles and rationales behind sets of methods and procedures for inquiries. In this study the focus is on the methodology of designing learning tools — design methodology. Design methodology can be considered to concern those philosophical assumptions and procedures that are expected to lead to a good and well-working design and, in this sense, also to a significant and meaningful design — as criteria for good design. When focusing on methodology, this study investigates questions and suggestions about designing design tools.

Load more