![THE PROBLEM OF CONTEXT: THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ICT CAN SUPPORT LEARNING Rosemary Luckin, in collaboration with Wilma Clark and Joshua Underwood [email_address] ,[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/icicteinvitedtalk-100801113248-phpapp02/85/icicte-invited-talk-1-320.jpg)
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (19)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (18)
Ähnlich wie Icicte invited talk
Ähnlich wie Icicte invited talk (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Icicte invited talk
- 6. How can we talk about these circumstances to support design? What can we learn from theory? What can we learn from previous work? Testing the EoR
- 7. How can we talk about these circumstances to support design? What can we learn from theory? What can we learn from previous work?
- 9. Theoretical Background to ‘Context’ A complex multiplicity to which we are serially exposed. Language makes reference to local issues , local conditions , local knowledge , social , interactional and institutional elements and a sense of history through ‘ sedimented structures ’ (Williams, 2002). Linked to Space and Place with the attribute of Landscape and thus horizon and boundaries .
- 10. Theoretical Background to ‘Context’ Context as a container OR as distributed in the artifacts which are woven together in concert with and as part of the permeable, changing, events of life . (Cole, 1996). Artefact-mediated action - the existence of both the mediated and unmediated link between subject and object. Situated Cognition , LPP and Activity Theory -> Vygotsky and the ZPD Every function has two levels: the interpsychological and the intrapsychological . All the higher functions originate as actual relations between human individuals. (Vygotsky, 1978).
- 11. The Zone of Proximal Development Pedagogy
- 12. Theoretical Background to ‘Context’ Distributed Cognition (Hutchins,1995) cognition has been ‘ unhooked from interactions with the world ’ –uses the metaphor of an ‘ ecology of thinking ’ to describe human cognition as interactions within an environment ‘rich in organizing resources ’. Goodwin (2003; 2007) - we need to take the structure of the environment into account through ‘ environmentally coupled gestures ’
- 13. Theoretical Background to ‘Context’ Context = ‘ any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications themselves ’ (Dey, 2001). Dourish (2001) proposes embodied interaction as a feature of interaction; ‘ embodiment is a question of how the technology is used ’. Rogers (2006) impossible to implement context – we need the creation of technologies that can be ‘ ecologies of resources ’ that meet people’s needs, with people as the drivers in control.
- 18. Putting Theory into Practice: Empirical Background
- 19. How can we talk about these circumstances to support design? What can we learn from theory? What can we learn from previous work?
- 20. The Homework project: participatory design with teachers, learners, parents OPEN MIND PRODUCTIONS, CHANNEL 4Learning, Joshua Underwood, Joe Holmberg, Hilary Smith, Hilary Tunley, Ben du Boulay
- 22. A = Zone of Available Assistance B = Zone of Proximal Adjustment ZPD learner more able partner
- 24. How can we talk about these circumstances to support design? What can we learn from theory? What can we learn from previous work?
- 25. The Zone of Proximal Development Pedagogy
- 26. A = Zone of Available Assistance learner learner
- 27. learner
- 28. Key = context category element Tools and People Knowledge and Skills Environment learner
- 29. Key = context category element = filter element Tools and People Knowledge and Skills Environment Filter Filter Filter learner
- 30. Key = context category element = filter element Tools and People Filter Filter Filter Knowledge and Skills Environment learner
- 31. Key = context category element = filter element Tools and People Knowledge filter Tools and People Filter Environment filter Knowledge and Skills Environment learner
- 33. The Homework project as an Ecology of Resources 30
- 34. Numeracy Numbers Addition Subtraction Time Addition adding 2 numbers to equal 10 adding and subtracting numbers 9 and 11 Family Tablet Mum Dad Sibling Family Norms Household ‘rules’ Bedtime Where work is allowed Home Rooms Lounge Bedroom Garden Key = influence = cxt. cat. element = filter element = part of = type of = social/family Tablet use ‘rules’ Battery Pen Keyboard Screen School Rooms Class Library Playground School ‘rules’ Timetable Where work is allowed learner
- 35. Numeracy Numbers Addition Subtraction Time Addition adding 2 numbers to equal 10 adding and subtracting numbers 9 and 11 Family Tablet Mum Dad Sibling Family Norms Household ‘rules’ Bedtime Where work is allowed Home Rooms Lounge Bedroom Garden Key = influence = cxt. cat. element = filter element = part of = type of = social/family Tablet use ‘rules’ Battery Pen Keyboard Screen School Rooms Class Library Playground School ‘rules’ Timetable Where work is allowed learner
- 38. How can we talk about these circumstances to support design? What can we learn from theory? What can we learn from previous work? 30 Testing the EoR
- 40. learner
- 41. Phase 1 Design Framework, Step 1 – Brainstorming Potential Resources to identify the learners’ ZAA Design Problem: (Generic) Characterising the learner, the learning context and learners’ interactions with their context and available technologies. Design Motivation Design Activity ZAA Issue 1 Characterising learner, learning context and available technologies Exploring the learning context using informal chat, observations, photographic data, documentary data Generic, general overview of spaces, people, tools, practices, technologies and activities Skills gap – technical support multi-context use of technologies 2 Linking learners, contexts and technologies 3 Linking learners and technologies to trips/visits 4 Linking learners and technologies to specific trips Exploring learner perceptions of relationships between trips, technologies and learning - group discussion (semi-structured interview) Focus down on practices and learner’s resources Distinctions made between studying/ learning ; leisure / learning; interests/ learning; and intrinsic/ extrinsic motivations Skills and knowledge gap – use of technologies for learning, green issues problematic (locale, transport, rules in public spaces)
- 42. Phase 1 Design Framework, Step 1 – Brainstorming Potential Resources to identify the learners’ ZAA 35 Refined ZAA (Trip to Royal Observatory to learn about Astronomy): Category Elements Knowledge Environment Resources Astronomy, information on the sky at night (stars, galaxies, Milky Way, etc.) Royal Observatory, Planetarium, shop, cafe, GPS networks, wifi connectivity, Internet connectivity, Planetarium Exhibit spaces, Planetarium learning workshops Learners, staff from learning centre, peers, researcher-designer, museum guides, show narrators, museum attendants, shop assistants, other museum staff), other learners/visitors, interactive exhibits, simulations, models, digital information screens, mobile phones, text messaging, batteries, memory cards, voice recorder, digital still image camera, digital video camera, combined still image/video camera, headphones, Planetarium shows and exhibits with information on the universe, galaxies, stars, black holes, Milky Way, films, video clips, DVDs.
- 44. Step 3 – Categorising category elements Key = context category element Tools and People Knowledge and Skills Environment learner
- 45. Step 3 – Categorising category elements learner
- 46. Step 4 – Identifying filter elements Key = context category element = filter element Tools and People Filter Filter Filter Knowledge and Skills Environment learner
- 47. Step 4 – Identifying filter elements 40 Resources (can also be potential MAPs) Filters (can be positive or negative) Astronomy, Planetarium show, interactive exhibits, simulations, models, digital information screens, information about the universe, galaxies, stars, black holes, Milky Way, film or video clips, audio commentaries, Planetarium learning workshops, Planetarium shop Milky Way, design and layout of exhibit space , content/relevance/organisation of exhibits, access (to show, exhibits, workshops, shop), Internet connectivity, network connectivity , language, location, Planetarium rules , time Learners, staff from learning centre, peers, researcher-designer, Planetarium show narrator, museum guides, Planetarium ticket collectors, shop assistants, other museum staff, other learners/visitors Relationship , accessibility, time, location, existing knowledge, environment, confidence, opportunity, group/community rules Mobile phones, batteries, memory cards, voice recorder, digital still image camera, digital video camera, combined still image/video camera, headphones, mp3 player/iPod, DVDs Connectivity, Planetarium rules, copyright, power, storage capacity, technology skills, availability, quality, ambiance (e.g. light levels, sound levels)
- 49. Step 6 – Identify potential More Able Partners Name Explicit/Implicit MAP Relationship and constraints Resources Planetarium Show Narrator Implicit Infrequent, formal interaction constrained by show timing and constraints of employment Low familiarity with learner Social skills Astronomy knowledge Learning Mentor Explicit Frequent, formal and informal interactions constrained to time at learning centre/on trip High familiarity with learner Social skills Some astronomy knowledge Peer Learner Implicit Frequent, formal and informal, constrained by time at centre Some familiarity with learner Some social skills Some astronomy knowledge Technology Explicit Frequent (if personal to the learner), infrequent (if access is shared, local, static); constraints (other people, space, skills, time) Astronomy knowledge Information storage/retrieval Simulations, play, interactivity Visualisation Communication Evaluation Participatory dialogue
- 51. Phase 2: Identifying Relationships and Filters learner Milky Way Andromeda Cigar Event Schedule Access Activities Peers, Mentor, Sibling Researcher - Designer Museum Staff Astronomy questions Astronomy inspires Astronomy explores Exhibits Galaxies Planetarium Rules
- 52. Modelling the Learner’s Context – The Planetarium Project
- 53. Phase 3: Identifying Scaffolds and Adjustments 45 Actions to be completed by learner and MAP Actions to be completed by design team to adjust and scaffold Negotiate a shared representation of the goal or sub-goal of potential interactions (identify the recognition-production gap). Provide facilities or tools to enable learner and MAP to negotiate the gap. Astronomy example: Learner and MAP can explore the range of available technologies and discuss their suitability for a particular activity. Explore the resources identified in the learner’s EoR model. In particular the filter elements and the extent to which these need adjustment. Provide accessible descriptions of available resources. Astronomy example: Learner consults with museum staff to establish rules of engagement with setting; local signage also contributes to this; researcher-designer and learner discuss functionalities of technologies. Select the resources most suitable for the learner and identify at what levels of difficulty and in what way these should be introduced. Provide specifications of the range of resources, e.g. level of difficulty or range of locations. Astronomy example: learner and researcher-designer discuss opportunities for in situ transfer of data using mobile phone and Flickr.
- 54. Trajectories of Learning in Learners’ Digital Worlds T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
- 55. Student D – playing game (iteration 4 prior to trip) – card selection – and taking photo at Planetarium
- 56. How can we talk about these circumstances to support design? What can we learn from theory? What can we learn from previous work? Testing the EoR
- 57. Joshua Underwood – language learning 50
- 59. Resources for investigating, making & sharing meaning TV & Film Newspapers, Books & Magazines, e-mail… Songs & Radio Language in action… Resources for investigating, making & sharing meaning
- 60. End result 1 – initial technology design for m-iLexicon Capture of language interactions & Context Notes, images, sounds, where & when Collected language items Resources Filters Structured language item record Interaction history Send item to resources e.g.
- 63. Thank you
Hinweis der Redaktion
- THANK YOU for inviting me – privileged – enjoying conference
- OVER THE YEARS I HAVE BEEN INCREASINGLY CONCERNED WITH CONTEXT/CIRCUMSTANCES
- For example, …. With BBC and University of Bath
- My background from csai inc. psychology to education – this impacts on the way I look at problems – inextricably linked to our material environment
- My background from csai inc. psychology to education – this impacts on the way I look at problems – inextricably linked to our material environment
- Complex - not necessarily a singular entity, a multiplicity to which we are serially exposed. The language that surrounds the use of the term context makes reference to local issues, local conditions, local knowledge, acknowledgement of social, interactional and institutional elements and a sense of history through ‘sedimented structures’ (Williams, 2002). Linked to space and place – Space: an encompassing void that contains people and things that can be usefully related to one another; Place: more immediate and more connected to people and their subjective lived experience; framed by form, function, interactions, design and legislation; defined by power, policy and politics. Landscape, attribute of place with a horizon and boundaries.
- Distributed Cognition (Hutchins,1995) cognition has been ‘ unhooked from interactions with the world ’ –uses the metaphor of an ‘ ecology of thinking ’ to describe human cognition as interactions within an environment ‘rich in organizing resources ’. Goodwin (2003; 2007) - we need to take the structure of the environment into account through ‘environmentally coupled gestures’. In Goodwin (2007) he describes the interactions between 11-year-old Sandra and her father as they complete Sandra’s maths homework in the parental bedroom. Sandra is working on fractions in her workbook and Goodwin demonstrates how Sandra’s father helps Sandra complete an answer through combining language, gestures and the structure of the environment so that the different media ‘mutually elaborate each other to create a whole that is different from, and greater than, any of its constituent parts’ (Goodwin, 2007: 55).
- Context defined by Dey (2001) as ‘any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications themselves’ (Dey, 2001:7). Dourish (2001) identifies the confusion that surrounds what it means for a device to be context-aware and proposes embodied interaction to specify how computers and the world ‘fit together.’ Dourish ( 2001). Embodiment is not a feature of particular technologies, but a feature of interaction; ‘embodiment is a question of how the technology is used’. Rogers (2006) - difficult, if not impossible to implement context – we need ‘designing for engaging user experiences’ and the creation of technologies that can be ‘ecologies of resources’ that meet people’s needs, with people as the drivers in control.
- Context matters to learning; it is complex and local to a learner. A learner is not exposed to multiple contexts, but rather has a single context that is their lived experience of the world; a ‘phenomenological gestalt’ (Manovich, 2006) that reflects their interactions with multiple people, artefacts and environments. If we accept that context is centred around an individual, then its time-scale is that individual’s life and its boundaries are those of that individual’s interactions. The partial descriptions of the world that are offered to a learner through these resources act as the hooks for interactions in which action and meaning are built. It is the manner in which the learner at the centre of their context internalizes their interactions that is the core activity of importance. These interactions are not predictable but are created by the people who interact, each of whom will have intentions about how these interactions should be.
- It is the role of the more able participants to scaffold a learner’s construction of a narrative that makes sense of the meanings distributed amongst the resources. Through this scaffolding the learner at the centre of their context internalizes their interactions and develops increased independent capability and self-awareness. These proposals will involve designers of technology-rich learning environments in supporting activity across multiple locations and with multiple people. It will also require mixed methods of human and computer scaffolding as proposed by Pea (2004) that encompass learning that occurs naturally, as well as learning that is officially orchestrated. The scaffolding assistance will, therefore, be provided by a range of different people and artefacts, the connections between which need to be recognised as part of the wider task environment in a meta-scaffolding process. This means orchestrating the fading of the whole environment as well as the components within an individual artefact (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005).
- CSCL
- My background from csai inc. psychology to education – this impacts on the way I look at problems – inextricably linked to our material environment
- The Homework project and the associated HOMEWORK software. This work was completed with Joshua Underwood, Joe Holmberg, Hilary Smith, Hilary Tunley ad Ben du Boulay. This project explored how technology could be used with 5 -6 year old children to support their interactions with a variety of other people and a variety of other resources across a range of locations. The project was a collaboration between academics, film producers and broadcasters - Open Mind Productions and Channel 4 Learning, parents, teachers and children. The HOMEWORK software was an interactive Maths education system for children aged 5 -7 years that used a combination of interactive whiteboard, tablet PC technology and some bespoke software. This software consisted of lesson planning, classroom control and home use components. The system contained a rich set of multimedia and associated interactive numeracy resources. Teachers used the software to link these resources together into lesson plans. In the classroom, the interactive whiteboard was used for whole class activities and each child also had their own tablet PC for individual and small group activities. The teacher could control the classroom activity from her own tablet PC and could allocate new activities or send messages to individuals or groups of children in real time. When planning each lesson the teacher could also decide upon homework activities and allocate them to individual children’s tablets as appropriate. After school, the children took their tablet PC home with them and used it at home or elsewhere, individually or with parents. At home, in addition to homework activity set by the teacher, the tablet provided access to the resources used in class that day and in previous sessions (irrespective of whether the child was actually in school or not) and information for parents about the learning objectives to which these activities related. There were also links to other relevant fun activities, and a messaging system to support parent and teacher communication.
- The following brief extract from a story about one of the learners constructed from the multiple data sources offers a rare insight into home learning… … Once again the Homework Tablets come home for the weekend on 29 April. Alison has friends visiting and on Saturday afternoon she shows them her Homework Tablet. She shows them some of the videos, games and exercises. They open up the camera, play InkBall, and write in Windows Journal. Later that same day at about 6.50pm Alison and Dad use the camera in the garden. Alison also spends 3 to 4 minutes completing some Number Crew Calculations, watching a Number Crew video and opening her completed Skill 5 homework activity. … Later this evening at around 8.15 pm Alison does one of the homework activities in her bedroom on the bed with Dad. Alison does the ‘Ten thing Bowling’ Activity Alison then does level 2 of the Skill 5 homework activity for about 5 minutes and finishes this session by watching some Number Crew videos with Dad. On Thursday Alison uses her Tablet with her Mum and Elizabeth at about 5.15pm while they watch Catherine take part in a Karate lesson, so they use the headphones. Alison spends a few minutes writing in the Journal and they then watch 2 videos and complete activities 8 and 6 before watching another video … Narratives such as this provide interesting information about the ways in which the design of the system might be further improved. Alison makes use of the flexibility offered by the technology and uses her Homework Tablet in a variety of locations, including the lounge, her bedroom, the garden and at her sister’s Karate club. She works on the floor, sofa, at a table or on her bed and at many different times throughout the day from just after 8 in the morning until after 9 pm at night. The choices about when and where to work on her numeracy can be made by her within the constraints negotiated with her family. Sometimes she works on an activity for a minute or two and on other occasions for 25 minutes. The Homework tablet is often used on more than one occasion in a day and for sessions of up to 40 minutes. Alison works on the homework activities set by Miss Green, but does much more besides these and clearly enjoys herself, provided that the technology is working properly. She is able to choose what she wants to work on, she can show it to her friends and other family members and in so doing behave independently. The numeracy activities sometimes offer Alison the opportunity to record information about her life outside school and she can also use the camera to capture information for numeracy activities about her home. The whole family get involved with the numeracy activities available through the Homework Tablet. Mum, Dad and sisters all work with Alison during the study. They can do this in a way that fits with family life. Mum reports that she has an increased awareness of the numeracy that Alison is working on at school. Mum also reports that Alison’s interest in numeracy has increased and that she has enjoyed the activities.
- In a situation such as that described by the Homework case studies, it is clear that in the out of school environment alone there may be multiple people who play the role of the MAP at different points during the learner’s interactions. Likewise in the school environment there will be the teacher, classroom assistant, peers, other teachers and parent helpers. Each of who may also play the role of the MAP at different points in time. The HOMEWORK system was designed to support both the child learning and also the people playing the role of her MAP. It also had a role to play in the negotiation of the learner’s ZPA with and between those playing the role of her MAP, through, for example, the provision of information for parents and for teachers about what each had done with the learner at home and at school. The data gained from the Homework project is helpful in providing a starting place for working out how best the technology can support this negotiation. For example, the information for Grown Ups supports communication between teacher and parent to engender continuity of language in the way that the activities are discussed with the learner, and the ability to replay and review completed activities enables each person acting as the learner’s MAP to see what the child has done when either working alone or with another. In addition to supporting others playing the role of a MAP, the system itself had a role to play as a MAP through the carefully designed scaffolding provided for learners.
- CSCL
- My background from csai inc. psychology to education – this impacts on the way I look at problems – inextricably linked to our material environment
- Water
- The Ecology of Resources model maps out the different types of element that might offer interactive possibilities for a particular learner and it considers the interactions that can exist between these element types . The model has the learner at its centre. One of the categories of element that the learner needs to interact with is the concepts that make up the knowledge and skills that are the subject of the learning. This is represented by the ‘Knowledge’ label, but it is important to stress that this label encompasses skills, as well as knowledge of scientific concepts,. A second category is that represented by the ‘Resources’ label. These are all the various resources that might help the learner to learn and include books, pens and paper, technology and other people, some of whom know more about the Knowledge or skill to be learnt than the learner. The last category of context element is that represented by the ‘Environment’ label. This is the location and surrounding environment with which the learner interacts. This might be a school classroom, a park or a place of work. In many instances a relationship already exists between these three types of contextual element: Knowledge (and skills), Resources (human and artefact) and Environment. Hence the categories of element surrounding the learner and with which they interact are joined together. In order to support learning the relationships between the different type of element with which the learner interacts need to be understood and can be used to build coherence into the interactions experienced by the learner. However, a learner’s interactions with the elements of that make up her context are often filtered by the actions of others rather than experienced directly by the learner. For example, the Knowledge or skills that are to be learnt are usually filtered through some kind of organisation or Curriculum, for example, that has been the subject of a process of validation by other members of the learner’s society. This filter is stronger for subjects such as maths and other formal educational disciplines than for more grounded skills such as motor mechanics. However, even with skills based subjects there is still, to some extent at least, formalisation of what is recognised as the accepted view about the nature and components of the skill that need to be mastered. The Resources that may be available to the learner are also administered in some way. This resource administration forms a filter in terms of a learners’ access to at least some of the resources that might be available to help her learn. Finally, a learner’s access to the Environment is mediated by that Environment’s organisation. As in the case of Knowledge, this organisation filter is more obvious in formal settings such as schools where timetables and regulations have a strong influence on the ways in which learners interact with their environment. In the same way that there may already exist relationships between the different context elements, there may also exist a relationship between these filter elements. For example, the organization of the numeracy curriculum in the Homework project example influenced the teacher’s choice of resource for her lesson plan and the nature of the technology that was to be used by learners: the interactive whiteboard or the tablet PC. The layout of the classroom was also influenced by the nature of the resources being used, a floor space near the interactive whiteboard large enough to seat the whole class. These relationships are illustrated through the connections between the Filters. Once again, the coherence of the learner’s experience can be enhanced through careful consideration of the existing relationships between the Filters and between the individual Context Elements and their associated Filters. Relationships in the Ecology of Resources The Ecology of Resources model represents the learner holistically with respect to the interactions that make up their context. The model draws attention to different categories of element and identifies the existence of filter elements to highlight where there may be perturbations, which can be both negative or positive, in the learner’s interactions. However, it is the relationships and interactions between elements and between learner and elements that are of real interest. It is therefore to these that we pay particular attention here. These relationships are complex. Each category of element and therefore each element in that category is related to each of the other elements as well as to the learner. As indicated in the early discussions of the Ecolab software context illustrated earlier the nature of the relationship represented by the arrows in the Ecology of Resources model is one of influence. One element influences a second and that second element is influenced by the first. There are also relationships and interactions between the elements that are part of the same category of element. These relationships are of four types: influences relationships as already discussed component relationships in which one element is part of another typology relationships in which one element is a type of another social relationships such as that between family members, friends or communities.
- The Ecology of Resources model maps out the different types of element that might offer interactive possibilities for a particular learner and it considers the interactions that can exist between these element types . The model has the learner at its centre. One of the categories of element that the learner needs to interact with is the concepts that make up the knowledge and skills that are the subject of the learning. This is represented by the ‘Knowledge’ label, but it is important to stress that this label encompasses skills, as well as knowledge of scientific concepts,. A second category is that represented by the ‘tools and people’ label. These are all the various resources that might help the learner to learn and include books, pens and paper, technology and other people, some of whom know more about the Knowledge or skill to be learnt than the learner. The last category of context element is that represented by the ‘Environment’ label. This is the location and surrounding environment with which the learner interacts. This might be a school classroom, a park or a place of work. In many instances a relationship already exists between these three types of contextual element: Knowledge (and skills), Resources (human and artefact) and Environment. Hence the categories of element surrounding the learner and with which they interact are joined together. In order to support learning the relationships between the different type of element with which the learner interacts need to be understood and can be used to build coherence into the interactions experienced by the learner. However, a learner’s interactions with the elements of that make up her context are often filtered by the actions of others rather than experienced directly by the learner. For example, the Knowledge or skills that are to be learnt are usually filtered through some kind of organisation or Curriculum, for example, that has been the subject of a process of validation by other members of the learner’s society. This filter is stronger for subjects such as maths and other formal educational disciplines than for more grounded skills such as motor mechanics. However, even with skills based subjects there is still, to some extent at least, formalisation of what is recognised as the accepted view about the nature and components of the skill that need to be mastered. The Resources that may be available to the learner are also administered in some way. This resource administration forms a filter in terms of a learners’ access to at least some of the resources that might be available to help her learn. Finally, a learner’s access to the Environment is mediated by that Environment’s organisation. As in the case of Knowledge, this organisation filter is more obvious in formal settings such as schools where timetables and regulations have a strong influence on the ways in which learners interact with their environment. In the same way that there may already exist relationships between the different context elements, there may also exist a relationship between these filter elements. For example, the organization of the numeracy curriculum in the Homework project example influenced the teacher’s choice of resource for her lesson plan and the nature of the technology that was to be used by learners: the interactive whiteboard or the tablet PC. The layout of the classroom was also influenced by the nature of the resources being used, a floor space near the interactive whiteboard large enough to seat the whole class. These relationships are illustrated through the connections between the Filters. Once again, the coherence of the learner’s experience can be enhanced through careful consideration of the existing relationships between the Filters and between the individual Context Elements and their associated Filters. Relationships in the Ecology of Resources The Ecology of Resources model represents the learner holistically with respect to the interactions that make up their context. The model draws attention to different categories of element and identifies the existence of filter elements to highlight where there may be perturbations, which can be both negative or positive, in the learner’s interactions. However, it is the relationships and interactions between elements and between learner and elements that are of real interest. It is therefore to these that we pay particular attention here. These relationships are complex. Each category of element and therefore each element in that category is related to each of the other elements as well as to the learner. As indicated in the early discussions of the Ecolab software context illustrated earlier the nature of the relationship represented by the arrows in the Ecology of Resources model is one of influence. One element influences a second and that second element is influenced by the first. There are also relationships and interactions between the elements that are part of the same category of element. These relationships are of four types: influences relationships as already discussed component relationships in which one element is part of another typology relationships in which one element is a type of another social relationships such as that between family members, friends or communities.
- The Ecology of Resources model maps out the different types of element that might offer interactive possibilities for a particular learner and it considers the interactions that can exist between these element types . The model has the learner at its centre. One of the categories of element that the learner needs to interact with is the concepts that make up the knowledge and skills that are the subject of the learning. This is represented by the ‘Knowledge’ label, but it is important to stress that this label encompasses skills, as well as knowledge of scientific concepts,. A second category is that represented by the ‘Resources’ label. These are all the various resources that might help the learner to learn and include books, pens and paper, technology and other people, some of whom know more about the Knowledge or skill to be learnt than the learner. The last category of context element is that represented by the ‘Environment’ label. This is the location and surrounding environment with which the learner interacts. This might be a school classroom, a park or a place of work. In many instances a relationship already exists between these three types of contextual element: Knowledge (and skills), Resources (human and artefact) and Environment. Hence the categories of element surrounding the learner and with which they interact are joined together. In order to support learning the relationships between the different type of element with which the learner interacts need to be understood and can be used to build coherence into the interactions experienced by the learner. However, a learner’s interactions with the elements of that make up her context are often filtered by the actions of others rather than experienced directly by the learner. For example, the Knowledge or skills that are to be learnt are usually filtered through some kind of organisation or Curriculum, for example, that has been the subject of a process of validation by other members of the learner’s society. This filter is stronger for subjects such as maths and other formal educational disciplines than for more grounded skills such as motor mechanics. However, even with skills based subjects there is still, to some extent at least, formalisation of what is recognised as the accepted view about the nature and components of the skill that need to be mastered. The Resources that may be available to the learner are also administered in some way. This resource administration forms a filter in terms of a learners’ access to at least some of the resources that might be available to help her learn. Finally, a learner’s access to the Environment is mediated by that Environment’s organisation. As in the case of Knowledge, this organisation filter is more obvious in formal settings such as schools where timetables and regulations have a strong influence on the ways in which learners interact with their environment. In the same way that there may already exist relationships between the different context elements, there may also exist a relationship between these filter elements. For example, the organization of the numeracy curriculum in the Homework project example influenced the teacher’s choice of resource for her lesson plan and the nature of the technology that was to be used by learners: the interactive whiteboard or the tablet PC. The layout of the classroom was also influenced by the nature of the resources being used, a floor space near the interactive whiteboard large enough to seat the whole class. These relationships are illustrated through the connections between the Filters. Once again, the coherence of the learner’s experience can be enhanced through careful consideration of the existing relationships between the Filters and between the individual Context Elements and their associated Filters. Relationships in the Ecology of Resources The Ecology of Resources model represents the learner holistically with respect to the interactions that make up their context. The model draws attention to different categories of element and identifies the existence of filter elements to highlight where there may be perturbations, which can be both negative or positive, in the learner’s interactions. However, it is the relationships and interactions between elements and between learner and elements that are of real interest. It is therefore to these that we pay particular attention here. These relationships are complex. Each category of element and therefore each element in that category is related to each of the other elements as well as to the learner. As indicated in the early discussions of the Ecolab software context illustrated earlier the nature of the relationship represented by the arrows in the Ecology of Resources model is one of influence. One element influences a second and that second element is influenced by the first. There are also relationships and interactions between the elements that are part of the same category of element. These relationships are of four types: influences relationships as already discussed component relationships in which one element is part of another typology relationships in which one element is a type of another social relationships such as that between family members, friends or communities.
- The Learner’s Culture and History All of the elements in any Ecology of Resources bring with them a history that defines them and the part they play in the wider cultural and political system. Likewise, the individual at the centre of the Ecology of Resources has their own history of experience that impacts upon their interactions with each of the elements in the Ecology. This wider history and culture is represented in this slide by the shaded areas that surround each of the pairs of elements and the learner at the centre. The existence and the importance of this wider cultural perspective can be addressed through the use of participatory methods to develop effective technologies. It also prompts the need for a detailed discussion, beyond the scope of this talk, of the way in which the Ecology of Resources model can be used as the basis for learning modelling activity. What type of model is the EoR – what is it useful for? Oepning dialogue and sensitising people -
- CSCL
- CSCL
- In this slide I have linked the learner to all context elements via the filter elements and have used a bi-directional arrow for the Family and Tablet Resources and the Home Environment, but a uni-directional arrow for Numeracy Knowledge. I have used a uni-directional arrow for this relationship in this example to indicate that for the most part learners have no influence on the nature of either the knowledge or its organization into a curriculum. In principle, and at advanced levels of learning such as when studying for a PhD it is possible that the learner may influence both the knowledge concepts and their organization into curricula. However, that is not the case for the Homework learner.
- In this slide I have linked the learner to all context elements via the filter elements and have used a bi-directional arrow for the Family and Tablet Resources and the Home Environment, but a uni-directional arrow for Numeracy Knowledge. I have used a uni-directional arrow for this relationship in this example to indicate that for the most part learners have no influence on the nature of either the knowledge or its organization into a curriculum. In principle, and at advanced levels of learning such as when studying for a PhD it is possible that the learner may influence both the knowledge concepts and their organization into curricula. However, that is not the case for the Homework learner.
- CSCL
- NB WIKI
- My background from csai inc. psychology to education – this impacts on the way I look at problems – inextricably linked to our material environment
- Study conducted with learners (11-15 years) and their mentors at a learning centre that offers an alternative to traditional state school Small groups, learner-directed activity, interesting research setting. On any one iteration, approximately 6 learners involved at one time. Iterative, participatory design process… aim to develop learners' understanding of the relationship between the technologies available to them, their learning activities, and their learning situation and environment, to enable the research team to increase their understanding of the learning contexts of learners, staff and resources in and beyond their immediate setting/activities Co-development/design of a technology card game - explore existing understandings/experiences and build on these – moving towards a trip to Planetarium – match technologies to new contexts. Illustrate study from perspective of one learner – fitting – given that EoR is described as a learner-centric ecology of resources. Now look at general overview of Student D in terms of learner, context and digital worlds
- Initial explorations with learners and staff at the centre revealed that although learners had access to a wide range of technologies for both formal and informal learning, they did not find it easy to make connections between these technologies, their learning activities and the available spaces for learning. In Table 1 I illustrate the iterative process at Step1 that led to the framing of an initial ZAA based on a loosely framed design need, which focused on the learners’ selection and use of technologies on trips. This widely framed ZAA fits with the notion that the initial step of Phase 1 of the design framework aims to provide the widest possible ZAA on the basis that this may need to be revisited across several iterations. This preliminary ZAA enables the design process to move onto Step 2 and is the target of subsequent revisions through subsequent design iterations.
- Initial explorations with learners and staff at the centre revealed that although learners had access to a wide range of technologies for both formal and informal learning, they did not find it easy to make connections between these technologies, their learning activities and the available spaces for learning. In Table 1 I illustrate the iterative process at Step1 that led to the framing of an initial ZAA based on a loosely framed design need, which focused on the learners’ selection and use of technologies on trips. This widely framed ZAA fits with the notion that the initial step of Phase 1 of the design framework aims to provide the widest possible ZAA on the basis that this may need to be revisited across several iterations. This preliminary ZAA enables the design process to move onto Step 2 and is the target of subsequent revisions through subsequent design iterations.
- At the end of Step 1 the goal of the design process had been specified as being: Linking learners and technologies to specific trips. A further set of iterations that moved between Steps 1 and 2 of the design framework, was required to produce a sufficiently narrow focus of attention that was sufficiently fine-grained to enable progress to Step 3. The refinements that occurred through this process required further dialogue and interaction with participants and involved researcher participation in two trips organised by learners – one to a farm (local) which focused on formal study and learning – biology and becoming a vet and one to the BBC (distant) which focused on leisure and learning – film studies and becoming a film producer. In each of these instances, the design team (comprising researcher, learners and learning advisors) was able to observe and discuss available resources, with a particular focus on the category elements and filters of the Ecology of Resources framework. With the increased understandings of the learner’s learning context across multiple locations gained through this participatory design process it was possible to generate an appropriate focus of attention: How can we support the learner to make appropriate selection and use of available technologies to learn about the Milky Way whilst on a trip to the London Planetarium?
- It is important to bear in mind that the resources identified at this stage are resources which are ‘external’ to the learner. The learner’s ‘internal’ resources are dealt with at Step 5. As with the Homework example, having identified a preliminary set of resources and ordered these according to the category elements, and having identified a suitably narrow focus of attention, we are now able to generate a preliminary Ecology of Resources model (Fig. *).
- It is important to bear in mind that the resources identified at this stage are resources which are ‘external’ to the learner. The learner’s ‘internal’ resources are dealt with at Step 5. As with the Homework example, having identified a preliminary set of resources and ordered these according to the category elements, and having identified a suitably narrow focus of attention, we are now able to generate a preliminary Ecology of Resources model (Fig. *).
- Filters can act as be constraints or opportunities, each of which can have positive/negative qualities. For example, in the Planetarium visitors are not permitted to take photographs or make audio recordings – this constraint has a negative impact on the learner’s ability to capture the content of the planetarium show. In the example of the learner’s desire to learn more about the Milky Way, she might attend the Planetarium Show where she will learn about the Milky Way as part of a particular scheduled show. The show as a resource is filtered by time (show times, length of narrative/visuals about Milky Way), by rules (no audio recording or photography allowed) which mean the learner must remember or record in a different way what she is seeing/hearing, by ambiance (a darkened room) where lack of light acts as a constraining filter on her ability to make written notes, and by opportunity – if, for example, she has a mobile phone, she could save text notes using the backlighting filter in the phone. The act of listening to the narrator and the presence of the audience acts as a constraining filter on the learner’s ability to use available MAPs as in situ resources. Some of these issues could be addressed in the design process, e.g. by considering the use of GPS sensors which ‘push’ information to learners’ mobile phones at various locations, or for example, the learner could opt to receive additional digital information about specific knowledge concepts, e.g. the Milky Way via Bluetooth to their mobile phone. All of these things act as potential filters in the learner’s interactions with her context. In the above example, some additional organisation/categorisation of resources and filters has been used to help focus on different aspects of resource ‘sets’, e.g. those ‘belonging’ to the site, those ‘belonging’ to the learner or the learner’s group and people as resources. This is not a necessary organisation but can be useful in terms of thinking about the different kinds of resource/filter and ways in which these both interact with learner and ways in which they might function as potential MAPs and/or require scaffolding/adjustment. As is also clear, resources can also be filters, e.g. the Milky Way is both a resource (knowledge concept) and a filter (of the knowledge domain of astronomy), a learner’s mobile phone can be both a resource (to capture data) and a filter (of light in a darkened room), and the Planetarium show narrator is both a resource (narrating) and a filter (managing the environment); if interacting with the learner after the show has ended, the narrator could also be a potential MAP for the learner.
- **Filters can act as constraints or opportunities, each of which can have positive/negative qualities. For example, in the Planetarium visitors are not permitted to take photographs or make audio recordings – this constraint has a negative impact on the learner’s ability to capture the content of the planetarium show. In the example of the learner’s desire to learn more about the Milky Way, she might attend the Planetarium Show where she will learn about the Milky Way as part of a particular scheduled show. The show as a resource is filtered by time (show times, length of narrative/visuals about Milky Way), by rules (no audio recording or photography allowed) which mean the learner must remember or record in a different way what she is seeing/hearing, by ambiance (a darkened room) where lack of light acts as a constraining filter on her ability to make written notes, and by opportunity – if, for example, she has a mobile phone, she could save text notes using the backlighting filter in the phone. The act of listening to the narrator and the presence of the audience acts as a constraining filter on the learner’s ability to use available MAPs as in situ resources. Some of these issues could be addressed in the design process, e.g. by considering the use of GPS sensors which ‘push’ information to learners’ mobile phones at various locations, or for example, the learner could opt to receive additional digital information about specific knowledge concepts, e.g. the Milky Way via Bluetooth to their mobile phone. All of these things act as potential filters in the learner’s interactions with her context. In the above example, some additional organisation/categorisation of resources and filters has been used to help focus on different aspects of resource ‘sets’, e.g. those ‘belonging’ to the site, those ‘belonging’ to the learner or the learner’s group and people as resources. This is not a necessary organisation but can be useful in terms of thinking about the different kinds of resource/filter and ways in which these both interact with learner and ways in which they might function as potential MAPs and/or require scaffolding/adjustment. As is also clear, resources can also be filters, e.g. the Milky Way is both a resource (knowledge concept) and a filter (of the knowledge domain of astronomy), a learner’s mobile phone can be both a resource (to capture data) and a filter (of light in a darkened room), and the Planetarium show narrator is both a resource (narrating) and a filter (managing the environment); if interacting with the learner after the show has ended, the narrator could also be a potential MAP for the learner.
- The resources reviewed here are resources which are internalised by the learner, e.g. confidence (as opposed to the external resources of the type captured in Step 4 above, e.g. mobile phones). These resources include such things as existing competencies, knowledge and skills as well as physical attributes. Some possible resources in the SDLC example were identified in Step 2 (Appendix 2) of the design process: co-ordination, curiosity, motivation/interest, existing knowledge, problem-solving skills, decision-making skills, planning skills, technical skills, learning models, learning styles, relationships, social skills, collaborative skills, communication skills, self-esteem If we assume ‘ confidence ’ as a form of social skill, we can see that this potentially relates to many of these learner resources. In the Homework example, this stage of the design process was compared to the activity of learner modelling (e.g. as used in HCI design) and decision-making about which aspects of the learner to model and how to quantify these. Whilst in the Homework example, the primary focus was cognitive and tied to numeracy concepts, in the SDLC Planetarium example, the primary focus (also cognitive) although tied to learner acquisition of knowledge and understanding of astronomy concepts, was also strongly filtered by the self-managed learning context, such that internal resources such as ‘self-esteem’, ‘interest,’ and, for example ‘motivation’ played equally important roles. Further, whilst learner modelling activity in HCI settings can be quantified automatically, this is not necessarily the case in social settings and in the SDLC example, it was also necessary to consider ways of capturing or measuring learner resources. If in the SLDC study, for example, we consider the learner resource confidence , we might produce a quantification projection in relation to a non-automated scaffold which looks like this: Thus, we can see that in the SDLC example, considering non-automated scaffolding in relation to learner resources required an evaluation of ways in which learner resources might be mapped, captured or logged. Logging is necessary to facilitate quantification of the impact of the scaffold activity and to frame the resultant progression of the learner’s ZPD. Thus, whilst a Likert scale could be built into a technology, e.g. as was effected in the Ecolab models, in more socially shaped environments (e.g. Riddles collaboration or this SDLC example), that automated quantification would need to be accounted for in some other way in a more socially-oriented setting, e.g. through learner’s use of a learning journal or a learning agreement and the conception of quantification in this respect might, for example, be linked into learning goals. AS outlined at the beginning of this section, for example, the self-managed learning model operating at the SDLC provides learners with a basic framework for assessing their learning in the form of 5 simple questions based on: past experience, present needs, future goals, ways of learning and evaluating learning and managed by the learners themselves (and negotiated/scaffolded as required in conjunction with learning mentors, peers or other available MAPs, e.g. parents, visiting experts, etc.). Ways in which technology might be used to support such self-assessment might take the form of an online blog as a learning journal or learner use of an expert or peer databases and the use of mobile technologies and the wireless transfer of digital data in the form of text messages, still images, or even short audio or video clips. If we were to consider a more cognitive approach in relation to the SDLC example (e.g. by comparison with the numeracy example in the Homework project), we might select as learner resource the notion of ‘existing knowledge’. Unlike the curriculum approach evidenced in the Homework example, the SDLC study involves a self-managed learning approach and a process curriculum. Thus, existing and commonly understood descriptors such as attainment levels or key stage descriptors would not apply. What might be more appropriate in this setting are levels mapped to age, experience, depth and scope of interest/motivation in a topic area, etc. The capture process would differ depending on whether the scaffold/progress was technological or human. Evaluation may be made ‘in the now’ through interactions between the learner and the MAP in dialogue, discussion, play, activity or via learner self-assessment in pre-, within- or post-activity reflections. In this way, we can see that Step 5 and identification of learners (internal) resources is closely linked to the development of the learner’s metacognitive skills through identification, selection and appropriation of resources framed by goal setting and evaluation/monitoring of learning. MAPs in the form of people or tools are instrumental in supporting/mediating learners’ development of these metacognitive skills sets, whilst the EoR approach to modelling serves to make the available resources (including MAPs) more explicit. The availability of mobile, pervasive and ubiquitous technologies means that activation of learners (internal) resources is no longer confined to a single location in time or space and hence the availability and relevance of these internal resources is simultaneously more complex and more flexible. Experts (MAPs) can be accessed at a distance; appropriate scaffolds and adjustments may be retrieved/generated beyond the immediate time slot/context, and so on.
- As with the Homework example, a range of potential MAPs can be identified in the scenario of the learner at the Planetarium who wishes to learn more about the Milky Way and similar consideration regarding the interactions between individual MAP resources is needed if appropriate design situations are to be generated from the EoR model. Some examples in the case of the SDLC might be as shown in Table *. The stated purpose of the EoR model at Phase 1 is to identify and model a particular design need. Through the various iterations in Steps 1 and 2 and the subsequent review and revision of these resources in Step 3 and Steps 4-6, we now have a subset of resources which are sufficiently scoped and relevant to the stated focus of attention for Phase 1 to enable us to proceed to Phase 2 and the identification of relationships and interactions which might influence the ways in which these resources may or may not be appropriated to act as forms of assistance for learners. Whilst Phase 1 also includes a Step 7 – the invitation to cycle through Steps 1-6 – this is more likely to occur where a new focus of attention needs to be addressed. It is also worth noting, at this point, that the iterative process can occur throughout the phase and is not necessarily wholly sequential, i.e. it may not be necessary to proceed through all 7 steps, in fact, the more likely scenario is as described here – a constant moving back and forth between steps according to the requirements of available data from the resource sets present in the scenario under exploration.
- NB WIKI
- NB TABLE - The aim of this phase is to identify the resources and filters of the Ecology of Resources model for the designated focus of attention relating to a trip to the Royal Observatory and London Planetarium, with a refined focus of attention on Astronomy and a learner’s interest in the Milky Way. The relevant resources and filters are identified in Table * below. In order to make sense of these in conjunction with the design process, we now need to look at these alongside the relationships and interactions that the learner brings to the process (and so begin to develop the application of a learner-centric framing of the EoR model). The aim of this secondary level of refinement of the EoR model in Phase 2 is to elaborate those activities/technologies/relations which will optimise the learner’s interaction with her context. There are four types of relationship: influences, components, typological and social. As with the Homework example, the resources identified in the SDLC example are organized into groups according to the category elements and relationships between the elements (in terms of influences, components, typologies and social connections) are identified. In the SDLC study, for example, the filter element and its component parts are formed by the learner’s identified desire to learn more about “the Galaxy and the Milky Way.” From the learner’s phrasing of this desire, we can denote a potential gap in knowledge between her understanding of the term Galaxy and the wider astronomical knowledge concept of Galaxies. Thus, there are potential scaffolds to be built between the knowledge resource ‘Galaxies’ and the learner’s existing knowledge of “the Galaxy and the Milky Way.”
- ***This figure tells us that the learner wants to learn about the Milky Way , a type of Galaxy . The range of knowledge available to the learner is framed by the knowledge domain of Astronomy of which the category ‘ Galaxies ’ is a component part. The learner is at the Planetarium on a trip and therefore has a number of resources available to her to locate information within this knowledge domain. She wanders around her immediate environment and decides to look at the Exhibit – “ Astronomy Questions ”. The Exhibit is a part of the Planetarium environment and Astronomy Questions is a type of exhibit. This exhibit provides both static and interactive resources. The learner is unsure how to use the interactive resources and seeks help from her learning mentor . After she has consulted the exhibits, she finds some information she is interested in. She doesn’t have a pen and paper handy but she does have a digital camera . The camera’s batteries have been charged and there is sufficient storage space on her memory card. The camera can take photos without the need of flash photography and a member of the Museum staff confirms that it is permissible to take photos in the Exhibition area . She snaps a photo of the information text about galaxies and then takes a photograph of the interactive animation. When she returns to the learning centre, she uploads these photos to the centre’s Flickr site online to share with her peers and her family and adds comments about her visit. She also uses the photo of the interactive animation as an illustration in the centre’s termly newsletter. She realises she could have used her mobile phone camera to take pictures and upload them directly to the centre’s Flickr account but she wanted a better quality image, particularly to read the text from the exhibit, and she had insufficient credit on her phone to transfer the data whilst she was at the Planetarium. As can be seen in the above example the EoR model can then be used to illustrate the learner’s interactions with resources and the nature of these interactions (red – available for use, green – permitted use and yellow – considered but rejected use). The relationships and filters framing available resources and potential MAPs are not only made more explicit but are contextualized. Opportunities for cross-contextual activities are also generated and made visible, e.g. the learner’s ability to share and comment on her learning via Flickr. Mapping a learner’s interactions with her context in this way can provide a preliminary model for considering ways of developing effective scaffolds and adjustments in both the learning process and the design process.
- **NB – not just the output in form of the card game, but also the process of designing the game. Student D’s iterative participatory experience from card game to trip – 5 iterations T1 – learner generated vocabulary about available technologies (filtered by processes – researcher-generated) T2 – co-designed technology card… combination of researcher-generated categories and learner-generated technologies T3 – revised card set – learner generated – increased level of abstraction – separating out technology from process (initial aim to reduce number of cards overall – actual result – increase in HOTs (thinking skills – introduction of colour matching) T4 – revised card set – learner generated – increased level of abstraction – colour coding – increase in HOTs – multi-functionality (multi-processual – identifying needs, etc.) – revised notepad – HOTs – linking current SD to future SD… expanding context to track multiple issues/questions T5 – cf activity pad in previous example… mobile phone used to capture image, uploaded to Flickr (cf next slide with photos of Student D – playing game – card selection – and taking photo at Planetarium) Link these stages to the 5 steps towards an ecological mindset (next slide)… enhancing learner’s repertoire… through process of identifying, classifying, negotiating, applying and reflecting. Again, keep simple and clear, don’t worry too much about ZPD/ZAA, etc.
- A loose visualisation of the EoR in a real-world context Knowledge construction Available resources Significant features Time/Space Filters/Mediation Photographs represent a combination of Category/Filter elements in which, for example, cards (categories) present knowledge and activity pad/coding/action cards operate as triggers/filters for that knowledge Student D here playing game – iteration 4 – prior to trip – already well developed Photo 1 – game play (components – cards, question wheel, activity pad, etc.) Photo 2 – Student D using mobile phone on trip to London Planetarium Learner context – developing understanding over time. Explain components briefly and how these came about, what they do, how they contribute to EoR model. Explain will cover participatory, iterative features later when discuss learner’s learning trajectories. Next, show how these two learner situations might be mapped onto EoR model.
- My background from csai inc. psychology to education – this impacts on the way I look at problems – inextricably linked to our material environment
- The EoR design framework is participatory & iterative First, map context to uncover the Zone of Available Assistance (from various perspectives) the More Able Partners, Resources & Filters that form this What are resources & filters? - resources help me learn - filters constrain/channel my interactions with resources - e.g. Curriculum / rules/available infrastructure - this can be good as well as bad Resources may act as filters and the same thing may often end up being described both as a filter and a resource but for design these are useful different ways of thinking about things (How can this thing help me learn? How does it constrain/facilitate my interactions with other resources?) How can we re-design the Zone of Available Assistance to form a Zone of Proximal Assistance? By making adjustments and scaffolding interactions - more on the difference later… So we (collaboratively) re-design context - and the EoR acts as a lens in this process that can build learners, designers and teachers context awareness BUT remember - it is the user that creates context NOT the designer - the user’s agency is critical (and the factors that influence this more later…)
- Tell the story of ‘un poche’ from 5 mots a jour blog of - replace narrative with cartoon style illustration of events left side if time available
- I start with a vision that reflects where I am now and then try to explain how I got there “ So, imagine… I am a language learner and I am continually coming across new language items. I hear a new expression in a coffee shop on holiday, the teacher presents new language in my evening class, I’m reading a book and I come across an unfamiliar expression. Let’s take the reading example. I have a feeling for the meaning of the new language within the context of the sentence, the page and the story but I’m not very sure. I highlight the sentence with my scanning pen and continue reading. The pen sends the sentence to the mobile in my pocket where it is added to my new vocab list. Later, I get my phone out and see a notification, I tap on it and it reveals a reminder list for the various ‘new language items’ I added today. I tap on one of those. It takes me to the entry card for this item, here I can make associations with other media photos, sound files, etc. I can also send the word or phrase to various resources, such as a dictionary, a translator, a concordancer, you tube, facebook, a friend… These resources help me explore the meaning of the word or phrase, find examples of its usage and practice using it. “ “ I have chosen an example where the language source is a written text printed on paper but the language may be sourced and processed in a similar way from spoken interactions in the real world, the classroom, film, TV, signs, etc…” “ Basically, the phone app acts as my digital notebook, it helps me capture language, inquire into how it is used, and practice using it by connecting to my personal learning environment (which I will explain later). It also supports my memory and helps me manage and reflect on my learning and resource use”.
- Overview of the conceptual design Language in via user notes (written or spoken) and direct capture (photo, video, sound recordings) Organised persistent extensible collection of language items Language item structures further investigation of meaning & use & practice Direct links to the resources useful for this Resource use customizable by user - personal learning environment - preferred resources, contacts etc… Extensible collection of resources History of interaction with language item and self-assessment to promote reflection
- CSCL