Learning from Interpretations of Innovation

Wilkerson, M. H., Shareff, R. L.*, & Laina, V.* (in press). Learning from “interpretations of innovation” in the co-design of digital tools. To appear in M-C. Shanahan, B. Kim, M. A. Takeuchi, K. Koh, A. P. Preciado-Babb, & P. Sengupta (Eds.), The Learning Sciences in Conversation: Theories, Methodologies, and Boundary Spaces. Routledge. [PDF][Routledge]

Learning Sciences researchers often design alongside the learners and other stakeholders they seek to support – involving them early and often in the conceptualization, development, and testing of learning environments (DiSalvo, 2016; Druin, 2002). This is done to preempt technical or pragmatic issues with design, to address problems of practice, and to build capacity for institutional change. However, designers often run into a more foundational issue: stakeholders hold different expectations about what types of learning a given design is meant to support (Könings et al., 2005; Könings e al., 2014; Wilkerson, 2017). These “interpretation(s) of innovation” (Fishman, 2014, p. 117) reveal different underlying goals and epistemologies held by designers, learners, and other stakeholders. In other words, they reveal which kinds of learning stakeholders expect or value, and whether those kinds of learning appear to be supported by the environment or not.

In this chapter, we argue that designers ought to (a) invite, attend to, and learn from different interpretations of designed innovations and (b) respond by expanding the designed environments to support more varied uses. We contend that this is especially needed when designed tools and environments are intended to introduce an audience to new or unfamiliar epistemic practices, such as those making use of digital tools.

Then, we describe two methodological approaches we have developed to engage in this type of collaborative design. The first, longitudinal tool interviews, involves conducting repeated task-based design interviews with learners over extended periods of time. These interviews invite active negotiation of what kinds of learning a digital tool should support. The second, backward conjecture mapping, engages stakeholders from diverse educational contexts with the same digital tool, in an effort to support a variety of applications. Both approaches provide opportunities for researchers to renegotiate their understanding of tool design, for learners and educators to experience new epistemological orientations and knowledge-building strategies, and for both parties to expand their conceptualizations of what is possible when digital tools and practices are introduced into formal learning environments.

No Comments

Post a Comment