Presentation of the Design2Learn project by Iolanda Garcia (UOC) in the ICLS 2014

1. 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE LEARNING
SCIENCES.
Boulder, Colorado, USA 23-27 June, 2014
Analyzing university students’ participation in the
co-design of learning scenarios
Iolanda Garcia
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
http://design2learn.wordpress.com/
Design2Learn Project EDU2012-37537 Plan Nacional I+D+i.

2. Design2Learn project
The project aims to study the development of
more authentic, contextualized and learner-focused
learning scenarios through a co-design
process involving students and
teachers in the negotiation of the design
principles of such scenarios to assess the
potential of this approach as a catalyst for
change and innovation in higher education.

3. Theoretical foundations
Research strands on students participation
• Student engagement
• Student voice
• Students as producers
Participatory experiences in HE
• Weak definition of participation
• Risks and failures
• Need to articulate
implementation strategies

4. Defining (learning) design
”… design is by nature iterative and collaborative. It
requires discussion, reflection, critique and
implementation, so it works better in teams in
which there is a complementarity of skills and
knowledge. Being a cognitively demanding task, it
requires tools and representations that allow for
abstraction to be managed and understood”.
Goodyear & Retalis (2010)

5. Defining co-design
"a highly-facilitated, team-based process in
which teachers, researchers and developers
work together in defined roles to design an
educational innovation, realize the design in
one or more prototypes, and evaluate each
prototype's significance for addressing a
concrete educational need".
Roschelle, Penuel & Shechman (2006)

6. Project rationale
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
- Inquiry based
learning model
- Technology
enhanced &
Networked learning
- Co-design
instruments &
strategies with
special attention to
student perspective
1. Co-design processes involving students and
teachers can facilitate the adoption of an
inquiry-based learning model mediated by a
more mature and autonomous use of
technology by students in open and networked
environments.
2. Students’ participation in the co-design
process can integrate their perspective and
promote deeper learning.
3. The use of tools for representing teaching
and learning practice can facilitate the co-design
process.

7. Design principles
- Based on student perspective
- Representation instruments to support LD
- Participatory design strategies
- Teachers & students as researchers
- Teachers & students as designers
Pedagogical
model (IBL)
Use of
technology
(TEL/ NL)
Co-design
strategy
LEARNING
SCENARIO
- Participatory learning
- Social learning
- Ubiquitous learning
- Open learning
- Personalized and self-directed learning
- Learning through inquiry
- Problem/Question-led
- Application of scientific method
- Student-centered learning
- Inductive approach to learning content
- Teacher as a guide

8. Research questions
• RQ1. How are participants’ roles and levels of intervention
negotiated, assigned and managed throughout the co-design
process? (students participation)
• RQ2. What are the strategies, instruments, stages and other critical
issues to consider in the process of co-design? (students
participation)
• RQ3. What are the effects of the co-design process on students’
perception of learning, teaching and learning design?
• RQ4. How does context (university model, area of knowledge,
profiles) influence the co-design process?

9. Design-Based Research
A systematic, but flexible methodology aimed to
improve educational practice through iterative
analysis, design, development and implementation,
based on collaboration between researchers and
practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to
contextually-sensitive design principles and theories.
Wang & Hannafin (2005)

10. Context (1st co-design cycle)
4 learning subjects
• Two different university
models: blended and
virtual
• About 4 UB / 2 UOC
teachers
• Different disciplines:
economics, biomedical
engineering, tourism,
communication
• 11 students: 2, 6, 2, 1

11. Research plan
Reported
period
PHASE 1 – Preparation of the research team
- Literature review and elaboration of the theoretical framework
- Elaboration of research design and instruments
Jan-Jul 2013
PHASE 2 – 1st Co-design cycle in 4 contexts
Sept-Jul 2014
Stage 1. Informed exploration and ideation of the
learning scenarios (researchers and teachers)
Sept-Jan 2014
Stage 2. Enactment of the learning scenarios and
assessment (researchers, teachers and students)
Jan-Jun 2014
Stage 3. Final evaluation and systematization of the
designed scenarios (researchers, teachers and
students) Jul 2014
PHASE 3 – 2nd Co-design cycle
Sept-Jul 2015
PHASE 4 – Broader impact evaluation
- Analysis of the intervention in multiple contexts to improve
theory on learning co-design.
Sept-Jan 2016

12. Design-based research framework
CONTEXTUALIZE
& EMPATHIZE
PROBLEMATIZE
&DEFINE
DOCUMENT
& IDEATE
CONCEPTUALISE
& PROTOTYPE
IMPLEMENT
& ASSESS
Problem finding Problem solving Solution testing
Identify
problem/s
related with
teaching/
learning practice,
define and
operationalize
the design
challenge to
address
Get involved to
know the
participants’
context and
needs, build
common ground
and
understanding.
Reflect and share
issues in your
practice
Explore other
experiences and
decide suitable
design principles
and pedagogical
approach.
Generate variety
of ideas to
address the
design challenge
Conceptualize a
learning scenario
able to solve the
design challenge
and turn it into a
visual and
tangible model
that can be
implemented and
tested
Implement the
prototype in real
context, monitor
and collect
feedback about
the learning
experience.
Assess, reflect
and improve the
designed
scenario
iterate – document – reflect – refine – iterate …
Theory-practice loop

13. Design-based research framework
CONTEXTUALIZE
& EMPATHIZE
PROBLEMATIZE
&DEFINE
DOCUMENT
& IDEATE
CONCEPTUALISE
& PROTOTYPE
IMPLEMENT
& ASSESS
Problem finding Problem solving Solution testing
Implement the
prototype in real
context, monitor
and collect
feedback about
the learning
experience.
Assess, reflect
and improve the
designed
scenario
iterate – document – reflect – refine – iterate …
Theory-practice loop
WS1 (only students)
• T1. Representation
designed learning
scenario in a timeline and
identification pros & and
cons.
• T2. Put in common pros
& cons found.
• T3. Elaborate force map
of 1 chosen common
problem.
WS2 (students & teachers)
• T1. Share force maps of
common problems with
teachers.
• T2. Share timeline
representation with pros &
cons with teachers.
• T3. Brainstorming about
available digital learning
resources in each context.
• T4. Categorization of digital
learning resources based on
purpose of use and design
principles.
WS3 (students &
teachers)
• T1. Identification of IBL
characteristics and
reflection on personal
experience with IBL.
• T2. Improvement &
ideation of new learning
scenarios based on IBL
and TEL principles.1

14. WS1 (only students)
• T1. Representation
designed learning
scenario in a timeline
and identification of
pros & and cons.
• T2. Put in common
pros & cons found.
• T3. Elaborate force
map of 1 chosen
common problem.
Participatory pattern workshops,
(Mor, Warburton, Winters, 2010)

15. WS2 (students & teachers)
• T1. Share force maps of
common problems with
teachers.
• T2. Share timeline
representation with pros &
cons with teachers.
• T3. Brainstorming about
available digital learning
resources in each context.
• T4. Categorization of
digital learning resources
based on purpose of use
EoR DF and design principles.
Luckin, 2010

16. WS3 (students &
teachers)
• T1. Identification of IBL
characteristics and
reflection on personal
experience with IBL.
• T2. Improvement &
ideation of new learning
scenarios based on IBL
and TEL principles.1

17. Framework of analysis
R. INSTRUMENTS
• Workshop direct &
indirect observation
• Workshop
productions
R. INSTRUMENTS
• Initial interview
• Post-workshop short questionnaire
• Final questionnaire
R. INSTRUMENTS
• VL environment observation
• Learning materials analysis
R. INSTRUMENTS
• Analysis of learning scenarios

18. Dimensions of analysis
Participation in the co-design process Perception of the co-design
• Group dynamics: interventions, role-taking,
decision-making, etc..
• Focus of co-design: tasks and tools used, design
principles integration, reflection on learning
experience, identification of problems, etc..
• Contributions to the designed scenario: a)
concerning methodological aspects; b) concerning
the use of technology as a learning resource.
A
process
• Understanding involved processes
in learning design.
• Assessment of the co-design
process: group dynamics and key
issues
• Assessment of the designed
scenarios.
• Perception of own contribution to
the process of co-design.
Co-design GROUP
DYNAMICS B Co-design CRITICAL ISSUES
A1Engagement B1 Reflection on student/teacher role
A2Collective contribution B2 Clarification IBL principles
A3Individual contribution B3 Clarification TEL principles
A4Conflicts B4 Task easiness
A5Centralized moderation B5 Emerging ideas/solutions
A6Role-taking comfort B6 Instruments usefulness
A7Collective agreement B7 Learning problems sharing
Conceptions about
learning, teaching
• Development of
concepts and attitudes
towards learning and
teaching, teacher and
student roles in the
university.
B8 Reflection on practice/learning approach
B9 Time management
B10 Clarification expected learning outcomes

19. 19
Framework of analysis
Qualitative analysis
- Workshops direct & indirect observation
Quantitative analysis
- Post-workshop questionnaire
RQ1 How are participants’ roles
and levels of intervention
negotiated, assigned and managed
throughout the co-design process?
RQ2. What are the strategies,
stages and critical issues to
consider in the process of co-design?

20. Preliminary results
Group dynamics
• The configuration of the groups is a key aspect in co-design work:
number of participants, homogeneity/heterogeneity.
• Task nature and structure: short, quick and complete.
• Time management.
• Importance of feeling comfortable with the role taken.

21. Preliminary results
Critical issues co-design process
• Interest of confronting students-teachers perspectives
• Co-design instruments, tasks useful to support dialogue and reflection on
learning practice/approach
• Difficulties in separating the analysis of the learning scenario and the
general practice at the university. Reluctant towards teachers innovative
practice.
• Anticipated problems/weak aspects identified in the learning scenarios
mainly related with: team work, autonomous learning, content
treatment/presentation, lack of motivation.
• TEL design principles compared with IBL ones difficult to capture in the
design process and to reflect in the learning scenarios.
• Not very knowledgeable of the use of technologies for learning and not
either very interested in proposing the use of new tools.

22. Questions instead of conclusions
• How to make progress in analyzing data and going back to theory to fuel
the co-design process as it develops.
• Who is in control of the design process? What should be the role of each
participant in co-design?
• How to find the balance between providing the necessary
tools/foundations to support the design process and letting it emerge
from its context/participants.
• How to involve participants in the research process.
• How to keep track of the process (activities undertaken, context
conditions, products developed in the design process, etc.).
• How to sustain across time the multiple iterations required.

23. Preliminary results
Group Dynamics All Workshops
0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00
Engagement
Collective contribution
Individual contribution
Conflicts
Centralised moderation
Role taking confort
Collective agreement
Workshop 8
Workshop 9
Workshop 10

24. Preliminary results
Co-design Critical Issues All Workshops
0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00
Reflection on student/teacher role
Clarification expected learning outcomes
Clarification IBL principles
Clarification TEL principles
Tasks easiness
Emerging ideas/solutions
Instruments usefulness
Learning problems sharing
Reflection on practice/learning approach
Time management
Workshop 8
Workshop 9
Workshop 10

25. Preliminary results
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Average A Average B
UB UOC
Comparison average scoring UB / UOC Workshop evolution scoring
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
W8 w9 w10
Título de valores

26. 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE LEARNING
SCIENCES.
Boulder, Colorado, USA 23-27 June, 2014
Thank you
Iolanda Garcia
igarciago@uoc.edu
http://design2learn.wordpress.com/
Design2Learn Project EDU2012-37537 Plan Nacional I+D+i.