Towards a Conceptual Framework for Requirement Gathering and Roadmapping in the Design of Learning Technologies

1,789
-1

Published on

Tore Hoel

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,789
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
44
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Requirement Gathering and Roadmapping in the Design of Learning Technologies

  1. 1. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Towards a Conceptual Framework for Requirement Gathering and Roadmapping in the Design of Learning Technologies Tore Hoel Oslo University College 2009 Joint Summer School on Technology Enhanced Learning Terchova, Sloavia tirsdag 2. juni 2009 1
  2. 2. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Background • Standards Governance & Role of Standards – Would Roadmapping give a better Horizon Scan of what standards to develop, use or scrap? • Requirement gathering • ICOPER is doing roadmapping! – And so were Prolearn, and almost any other European project... 2 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 2
  3. 3. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Standards Development Life Cycle 3 Source: LIFE project tirsdag 2. juni 2009 3
  4. 4. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Outline • Roadmapping – what theoretical underpinning? • SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi) as a knowledge management/ organisational learning theory... • ...Challenged by Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (Engeström) • Towards a Conceptual Model for Roadmapping? 4 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 4
  5. 5. Roadmapping Evolution Prolearn 2003-2007 eGov 2006- 2007 SCORM Time2Learn 2003 ROCKET 2002-2004 2001-2003 BRIDGES 1999-2002 IMTI IMS 2000-2001 2000 Source: Vana Kamtsiou, ICOPER tirsdag 2. juni 2009 5
  6. 6. Roadmapping Evolution ICOPER Prolearn Roadmap 2003-2007 eGov 2006- 2007 SCORM Time2Learn 2003 ROCKET 2002-2004 2001-2003 BRIDGES 1999-2002 IMTI IMS 2000-2001 2000 Source: Vana Kamtsiou, ICOPER tirsdag 2. juni 2009 5
  7. 7. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme What is the Object of Roadmapping? Tool Subject Outcome Object • Business Process Redesign? • Foresight – prediction of future state? • Learning process – knowledge creation process? • Consensus creating process? tirsdag 2. juni 2009 6 6
  8. 8. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Runaway objects • have the potential to escalate and expand up a global scale of influence • poorly under anybody's control and have far- reaching, unexpected effects • are contested (...) that generate opposition and controversy Source: (Engeström, 2008) 7 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 7
  9. 9. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Runaway objects • have the potential to escalate and expand up a global scale of influence • poorly under anybody's control and have far- reaching, unexpected effects • are contested (...) that generate opposition and controversy olog ies? ning techn Lear Source: (Engeström, 2008) 7 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 7
  10. 10. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Roadmaps Common Features • Timelines: Scope 7 - 8 years – present, short, medium and long term). • Scenarios in order to define desired futures (Where we want to be?) • Current state assessment (Where we are today?) • Gap Analysis by comparing the desired future with the current state assessment • Hierarchical maps of topics • Maturity level assessment (number of maturity levels and their description varies) • Survey and analysis tools (SWOT, etc.) 8 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 8
  11. 11. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme From Grand Challenges to Actions Source: IMTI model adopted in the Time2Learn Roadmap 9 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 9
  12. 12. Structuring the ICOPER work and outcomes in reference to the IRM The Grand Challenge: Design, deliver and support competency-based learning ICOPER 4 High level processes synthesizing Grand Challenge 1. Needs Analysis ICOPER SIGs Key Processes 2. Planning and Design 3. Learning Provision Key concepts / Key concepts and Issues (critical capabilities) to issues implement the key processes and problems to solve Scenarios / Use cases Desired “Future States” /Alternative Strategies: Articulated requirements and future scenarios Gap analysis Testing scenarios against state of the art -iSures Identify strengths and weaknesses (Gaps) Actions Identification of actions recommendations Recommendations Assessment of Actions against predefined criteria Provide & timelines (ST, MT, LT) LET Activities Processes Services Data IMTI: Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative, 2000 http://www.imti21.org Time2Learn March 2004 www.time2learn.org PROLEARN Roadmap 2007 www.prolearn- project.org tirsdag 2. juni 2009 10
  13. 13. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme The Roadmapping Process 11 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 11
  14. 14. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme The Roadmapping Process Source: Ambjörn Naeve/Prolearn 11 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 11
  15. 15. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Extending the Model (Prolearn) The SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) 12 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 12
  16. 16. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Extending the Model (Prolearn) The SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) 12 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 12
  17. 17. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme SECI used in Prolearn 13 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 13
  18. 18. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme SECI used in Prolearn 13 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 13
  19. 19. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme SECI used in Prolearn 13 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 13
  20. 20. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Criticism of the SECI model • Syncretistic Mysticism? 14 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 14
  21. 21. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme The empirical basis of SECI • The crucial question is: – Are such representational modes of knowledge an appropriate basis for discerning phases and recurrent sequential patterns in processes of knowledge creation? In other words, is Nonaka and Takeuchi's leap from a matrix to a cycle justified? Engeström, 2008a ? 15 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 15
  22. 22. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme What definition of roadmapping do we bring with us in the analysis? • Not about predicting the future! • Strategic Planning tool? Hardly... • More about organisational learning and knowledge creation Need to ground the activity in Learning Theories or Theories of Knowledge Creation 16 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 16
  23. 23. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 4 Questions to introduce us to Cultural-Historical Activity Theory 1. Where are we going? 2. Who gains, and who loses, by which mechanisms of power? 3. Is it desirable? 4. What should be done? Bent Flyberg’s heuristic questions in Developmental Work Research 17 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 17
  24. 24. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Where are we going? • How is historical data used in the analysis? T MOMENT IN THE FLOW EN M OF ACTIVITY OP SOCIOGENESIS; V EL DEVELOPMENT OF DE L THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM O NA E RS S ;P E SI G EN TO ON MICROGENESIS; DEVELOPMENT OF ACTIONS Source: Lecture Engeström, UiO, November 2008 18 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 18
  25. 25. Disturbances, Instruments: tools and signs Dilemmas, Production Object Critical conflicts, Turning Points, Subject Consumption sense, meaning Outcome Experiencing Voices, Trails...Rules Exchange Community Distribution Division of labor Instruments: tools and signs Production Object Subject sense, Outcome meaning Consumption Exchange Distribution Rules Community Division of labor T MOMENT IN THE FLOW EN Instruments: tools and signs M OF ACTIVITY L OP SOCIOGENESIS; VE Production Object Subject sense, DE meaning Outcome DEVELOPMENT OF Consumption L THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM O NA Exchange Distribution E RS Rules Community Division of labor S ;P E SI Contraditions, EN TOG Cycles of ON development MICROGENESIS; DEVELOPMENT OF ACTIONS Source: Lecture Engeström, UiO, November 2008 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 19
  26. 26. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Is it desirable? • How do we trace the driving forces of development, and how is object orientation built into the model? Instruments: tools and signs Object sense, Subject meaning Outcome Rules Community Division of labor 20 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 20
  27. 27. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Who gains, and who loses, by which mechanisms of power? • What are the tools and signs available for different participants and how are they used to construct the object of the activity? • How it allows for analysis of the mediated actions in the development of the knowledge creation process? 21 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 21
  28. 28. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme What should be done? • Is the action plan an integrated part of the roadmapping process that is further developed, or is it just a teleological end point? 22 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 22
  29. 29. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme ICOPER as a case 23 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 23
  30. 30. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 1. Unit of analysis • What is the starting point for ICOPER roadmapping? – Grand Challenges derived in in a top-down manner? – ICOPER pedagogical framework • Does SECI help to come up with the Unit of Analysis 24 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 24
  31. 31. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Engeström on SECI A central problem with Nonaka and Takeuchi’ s model, and with many other models of organizational learning, is the assumption that the assignment for knowledge creation is unproblematically given from above. In other words, what is to be created and learned is depicted as a management decision that is outside the bounds of the local process (see Engeström, 1999b). This assumption leads to a model in which the first step consists of smooth, conflict- free socializing, the creation of ‘sympathized knowledge’ as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) call it. (Engeström, 2001, p. 151) 25 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 25
  32. 32. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Addressing the relevant activity systems Instruments Instruments Potentially shared object Subject Subject Rules Community Division of Division of Community Rules labor labor Source: Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156. tirsdag 2. juni 2009 26
  33. 33. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 2. Tools and signs used? • How are the actors allowed to construct their object of activity, observed by their use of tools and signs? • What mediating artefacts make the power relations visible? • ICOPER: Comptency • SECI model has no «battle zones» – more about «ying-yang and harmony» 27 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 27
  34. 34. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 3. Driving forces • There is no activity without an object (Leont’ev) The object is a moving target, never fully accomplished (...) The object resists and kicks back (Engeström) • What drives roadmapping analysing using SECI? – The top level concepts (e.g., Grand Challenges, Critical Capabilities) seems to drive the analysis – SECI has not built-in mechanisms for questioning the point of departure of the knowledge creating process 28 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 28
  35. 35. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 4. Termination of the process – the action plan • Prolearn SECI spiral – Core group → Associates → Scientific community • A spiralling process with limited feedback looping • How to make sure that we don’t have a too early closure of the knowledge creating process? 29 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 29
  36. 36. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Bringing the framework forward • What drives the knowledge creation? • How to access the gaps? • The role of modelling • Bringing in Engeström’s model of Expansive learning 30 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 30
  37. 37. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 7. CONSOLIDATING AND GENERALIZING THE NEW PRACTICE STABILIZATION 6. REFLECTING ON THE 1. QUESTIONING PROCESS NEED STATE RESISTANCE 2. ANALYSIS 5. IMPLEMENTING THE DOUBLE BIND NEW MODEL 3. MODELING THE ADJUSTMENT, NEW SOLUTION ENRICHMENT BREAKTHROUGH 4. EXAMINING AND TESTING THE NEW MODEL Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm) 31 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 31
  38. 38. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 7. CONSOLIDATING AND GENERALIZING THE NEW PRACTICE STABILIZATION 6. REFLECTING ON THE 1. QUESTIONING PROCESS NEED STATE RESISTANCE 2. ANALYSIS 5. IMPLEMENTING THE DOUBLE BIND NEW MODEL 3. MODELING THE ADJUSTMENT, NEW SOLUTION ENRICHMENT BREAKTHROUGH 4. EXAMINING AND TESTING THE NEW MODEL Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm) 31 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 31
  39. 39. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Towards a conceptual model – ways forward? • Keep core parts of the SECI model? – e.g., the four movements (S, E, C, I) • Finding the right Unit of Analysis – We need a Requirement Gathering model for Roadmapping • Spotting Contradictions and Resistance – and making constructive use of them – Looking for both Consensus and Disagreements • Giving Modelling a prominent place in the framework 32 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 32
  40. 40. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme 2bDiscussed • What other theories could be used to strengthen roadmapping theoretically? • What «extensions» should we look for? • Other ideas? 33 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 33
  41. 41. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme Thanks! Information on ICOPER project www.icoper.org Please write to me or join my network: tore.hoel[@]hio.no twitter.com/tore www.hoel.nu/wordpress 34 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 34
  42. 42. co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme References • Engeström, Y. (2008a). From teams to knots: activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. • Engeström (2008b) From design experiments to formative interventions. Presentation at the ISCAR Conference. • Engeström (2008c) The future of Activity Theory: A rough draft. Keynote lecture presented at the ISCAR Conference in San Diego, Sept. 8-13, 2008. • Engeström (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001 • Engeström, Y. (2000). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. Workplace studies. Reco ering Work Practice and Informing System Design . J. H. C. H. E. P. Luff. Cambridge , Cambridge University Press. • Engeström, Y. (1999) Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8: 63–93, 1999. • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit. • Kamtsiou and Naeve (2008) Roadmapping: a methodology to improve the strategy for design of learning technologise. ICALT 2008 • Kamtsiou et al. (2006) Roadmapping as a Knowledge Creation Process: The PROLEARN Roadmap, Journal of Universal Knowledge Management, Vol 1, Issue 3 • Kappel, T. A. (2001). Perspectives on roadmaps: how organizations talk about the future. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18: 39-50. • Koskinen, T. (2004) Roadmapping the e-training future for Europe, Online Educa 2004 • 35 tirsdag 2. juni 2009 35

×