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

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

Standards Development Life Cycle

3
Source: LIFE project


co-funded by the
European Community

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

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

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

From Grand Challenges to Actions

Source: IMTI model adopted in
the Time2Learn Roadmap

9


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

co-funded by the
European Community

The Roadmapping Process

11


co-funded by the
European Community

The Roadmapping Process

Source: Ambjörn
Naeve/Prolearn

11


co-funded by the
European Community

Extending the Model (Prolearn)

The SECI model of
Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)

12

co-funded by the
European Community

SECI used in Prolearn

13


co-funded by the
European Community

Criticism of the SECI model
• Syncretistic Mysticism?

14

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

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


co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

ICOPER as a case

23


co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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.


co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

2bDiscussed
• What other theories could be used to
strengthen roadmapping theoretically?
• What «extensions» should we look for?
• Other ideas?

33

co-funded by the
European Community

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

co-funded by the
European Community

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

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

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (8)

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

Ähnlich wie Towards a Conceptual Framework for Requirement Gathering and Roadmapping in the Design of Learning Technologies (20)

Mehr von telss09

Mehr von telss09 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

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