Human-centered learning design with technology

Resumen

To improve and innovate education, a novel conception of the role of design in this realm is needed. Human-centered design (HCD), a problem-solving framework underpinned by the user perspective in all stages of the process, provides professional designers with a mindset and a toolbox that includes both process and methods. HCD is multidisciplinary by default and also practice-oriented, context-aware, empathetic and incremental. As such it naturally fits both the design for learning and many of educators’ everyday realities. We apply this conception in the context of technology-enhanced learning with the conceptualisation and implementation of a genuine intervention for the design of ICT-mediated learning activities. Following the Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD) model, the contributions of this dissertation 1) cover the epistemic, social and set design dimensions of a teacher training activity for educators; 2) inform the incorporation of HCD in education; and 3) provide interdisciplinary learnings for research as well as practice. These contributions have been reported in a set of papers: Garreta-Domingo, M., Sloep, P., Hernández-Leo, D. Human-centred design to empower ‘teachers as designers’. Accepted in the BJET special issue ‘Teachers as designers of TEL interventions’. Garreta-Domingo, M., Hernández-Leo, D., & Sloep, P. B. (2018). Evaluation to support learning design: Lessons learned in a teacher training MOOC. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1). http://doi.org/https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3768 Garreta-Domingo, M., Sloep, P., Hernández-Leo, D., & Mor, Y. (2017). Design for collective intelligence : Pop-up communities in MOOCs. AI & Society, 33(1), 91–100. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0745-0 Garreta-Domingo, M., Hernández-Leo, D., Mor, Y., & Sloep, P. B. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions about the HANDSON MOOC: A learning Design Studio Case. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL) (pp. 420–427). Springer. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_34 Garreta-Domingo, M., Hernández-Leo, D., & Sloep, P. B. (2018). Education, Technology and Design: A much needed interdisciplinary collaboration. Designing for the User Experience in Learning Systems, edited by Evangelos Kapros and Maria Koutsombogera. Springer Series on Human-Computer Interaction (http://www.springer.com/series/6033) The analysis of the results reported in the papers allow us to answer our research questions: RQ1. Which form of epistemic, social and set design could structure the incorporation of HCD in the design for learning? RQ2. Is HCD practice directly transferable to the design practices of educators? Results show how the design of our genuine intervention - a MOOC to guide participants through the design of an ICT-based learning activity - proved to be adequate to the incorporation of the HCD mindset, process and methods. Nevertheless, we also learned that the incorporation of HCD in education requires a specific adaptation for its transfer (RQ2). With our work we have directly contributed to the fields of learning design and technology-enhanced learning. More tangentially, we have also contributed to the fields of human-centered design, teacher training, educational technology. Follows as sample of the bibliography used: Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L., & Harper, B. (2011). The future of learning design. Learning, Media & Technology, 36(2), 97–99. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553619 Anderson, T. (2009). The Dance of Technology and Pedagogy in Self-Paced Distance Education Terry Anderson, Canada Research Chair in Distance Education Athabasca University, Canada, 1–7. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97. Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Pozzi, F., Hernández-Leo, D., Prieto, L. P., Persico, D., & Villagrá-Sobrino, S. L. (2017). Towards teaching as design: Exploring the interplay between full-lifecycle learning design tooling and Teacher Professional Development. Computers and Education, 114, 92–116. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.011 Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework, 32(1), 21–24. Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning. Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2015). Technology tools to support learning design: Implications derived from an investigation of university teachers’ design practices. Computers & Education, 81, 211–220. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.016 Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Design, learning networks and service innovation. Design Studies, 1–27. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.003 Colas, J.-F., Sloep, P. B., & Garreta-Domingo, M. (2016). The effect of multilingual facilitation on active participation in MOOCs Authors: IRRODL, 17(4). http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers and Education, 72, 68–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.014 Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423–435. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 Flavin, M., & Quintero, V. (2018). UK higher education institutions’ technology-enhanced learning strategies from the perspective of disruptive innovation. Research in Learning Technology, 26(1063519), 632–637. Retrieved from https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1987/ Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27–50. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/HERDSARHE2015v02p27.pdf Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. M. Goodyear (Eds.), The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks (pp. 48–70). New York and London: Routledge Falmer. Hermans, H., Janssen, J., Vogten, H., & Koper, R. (2015). Flexible provisioning for adult learners. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(2), 206–222. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Derntl, M., Pozzi, F., Chacón-Pérez, J., Prieto, L. P., & Persico, D. (2018). An Integrated Environment for Learning Design. Frontiers in ICT, 5(9). http://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2018.00009 Hernández-Leo, D., Moreno, P., Chacón, J., & Blat, J. (2014). LdShake support for team-based learning design. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 402–412. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.029 Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, Thomas, C. (1996). Learning wth technology: using computers as cognitive tools. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design cognition: contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 129–149. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553621 Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2016). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education : what is “ enhanced ” and how do we know ? A critical literature review, 9884(May), 1–44. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404 Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 985–997. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.004 Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Kirschner, P. A., van Buuren, H., & van Acker, F. (2013). Adopting the Integrative Model of Behaviour Prediction to explain teachers’ willingness to use ICT: A perspective for research on teachers’ ICT usage in pedagogical practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(February), 55–71. http://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.754371 Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. New York and London: Routledge. Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439–1459. http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479367 Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43(2), 229–257. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9338-1 McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2 Merriman, J., Coppeto, T., Santanach-Delisau, F., Shaw, C., & Aracil, X. (2016). Next Generation Learning Architecture. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10609/47481 Mor, Y., Craft, B., & Hernández-Leo, D. (2013). The art and science of learning design (editorial). Research in Learning Technology, 21(22513), 1–8. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v2li0.22513 Mor, Y., & Mogilevsky, O. (2013). The learning design studio: collaborative design inquiry as teachers’ professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22054 Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28. http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1 Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Pardo, A., Ellis, R. a., & Calvo, R. a. (2015). Combining observational and experiential data to inform the redesign of learning activities. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge - LAK ’15, 305–309. http://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723625 Reeves, Thomas, C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In Educational design research (pp. 52–66). Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Ritter, F. E., Baxter, G. D., & Churchill, E. F. (2014). Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems. Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems, 33–54. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5134-0 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner; How Professionals Think in Action. USA: Basic Books. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sloep, P. B. (2013). Networked professional learning. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-enhanced Professional Learning: Processes, Practices and Tools (pp. 97–108). London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/5215 Stoyanov, S., Sloep, P. B., De Bie, M., & Hermans, V. (2014). Teacher-training, ICT, Creativity, MOOC, Moodle - What pedagogy? In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of Edulearn 14, the Sixth International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN 14) (pp. 5678–5686). Barcelona, Spain: IATED Academy, IATED Digital Library. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/5463 Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2015). A fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers’ designing of technology-enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 283–307. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9342-5 Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2 Vogten, H., & Koper, R. (2014). Towards a new generation of Learning Management Systems. 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, (April). Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259–282. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7 Williams, A. (2009). User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication - SIGDOC ’09, 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1145/1621995.1621997