Archive | bondary_object RSS for this section

Participation in VET Congress 2017 with extended summary about our TBOC-model

sfivet_logoMy colleagues, Mette Allermand, Anna Brodersen, Carsten Lund Rasmussen, and I have an extended summary accepted for the SFI VET Congress 2017.  The congress takes place at the Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (SFIVET) in Bern/Zollikofen, Switzerland from March 14-16 2017. The theme of the congress is Unleashing the creative potential of VET, and Danish Professor, Lene Tanggaard Pedersen is one of the keynote speakers.

Our extended summary is entitled Technology-mediated Boundary Objects and Boundary Crossing in Vocational Education and Training – an instructional design model, and the abstract reads as follows:

In this extended summary, we propose an instructional design model aimed at using technology-mediated boundary objects and boundary crossing processes in vocational education and training. The model is based on preliminary findings from a current research project (2015-2017) on vocational teachers’ perceptions of transfer and boundary crossing and their use of information and communication technology (ICT) in relation to such processes. Theoretically the model is inspired by Akkerman & Bakker’s (2011) proposal of four dialogical learning processes, which are attributed boundary crossing potential. Empirically the model has been field validated among Danish vocational teachers attending continuing professional development courses at The Metropolitan University College in Denmark. While the instructional design model has been positively received among the vocational teachers, we still consider it to be a work-in-progress, and further research on how to scaffold the use of the model is needed.

As seen in this abstract, we aim to present an instructional design model we have developed based on findings in the first phase of our research project on ICT, transfer and boundary crossing in vocational education and training that we are currently conducting at the Metropolitan University College. Based predominantly on boundary crossing theory, but also with theoretical inspiration from Henningsen & Mogensen (2013) in relation to mediating tools, we have developed an instructional design model. Figure 1 below shows the model in its initial conception:

tboc_vers1

Figure 1. The TBOC-model version 1.0.

In figure 2 the TBOC-model is shown with examples of technologies that can be used in relation to different boundary crossing processes.

tboc_vers1_examples

Figure 2. TBOC-model with examples.

It’s important to notices that our work with the model is still very much in progress. Carsten and I have used the model in pedagogical exercises with in-service vocational teachers this fall, and we are still in the process of analyzing data from those design experiments. Furthermore, we are revisiting data from previous interviews and observations in an effort to further validate the model. In the spring of 2017, we plan to collect more data at vocational schools, and we’ll continue our work with the model – also based on new theoretical insights (e.g. this study by Marheineke).

/Mariis

References

Akkerman, S.F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. In Review of Educational Research. June 2011, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 132-169

Henningsen, S.E. & Mogensen, F. (red.) (2013). Mellem teori og praksis. Om transfer i professionsuddannelser. [Between theory and praxis. On transfer in Bachelor’s Degree and Academy Profession Degree programmes. ] VIA Systime.

Participation in NERA 2017 with a paper about Boundary Objects in Networked Learning

nera2017

My PhD-supervisor, Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld (AAU) and I have a paper accepted for the NERA 2017 conference. The 45th Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) will be held on 23-25 March 2017 at Aalborg University (AAU) in Copenhagen, Denmark. The theme of the conference is: Learning and education – material conditions and consequences.

Our paper is entitled: Participation and reification through (dis)embodiment as resource and arena for networked learning, and the abstract reads as follows:

In networked learning information and communications technology (ICT) is used to promote connections and interaction: between people and between people and resources, and thus boundaries and boundary work is always prevalent in discussions on networked learning (Ryberg & Sinclair, 2016). Based on two different case studies conducted at the Danish online Master programme on ICT and Learning (MIL), this paper addresses the issue of participation and reification through (dis)embodiment in design for networked learning.

Basically teaching is about designing opportunities for people to learn (Goodyear, 2015, Wenger, 1998), and according to Goodyear, Carvalho & Dohn (2016) there is an important distinction between elements of a learning networks that can be designed (partially, or completely), and processes that are emergent. From a learning perspective, how participants respond to design through their activities and through their use of boundary objects, is interesting. Building on Wenger’s (1998) learning architecture, we analyse how the two designs for learning differ in terms of design dimensions and with regard to potential boundary objects.

In study I, the arena for learning was a 2D virtual learning environment (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2006), whereas the arena for learning in study II was a 3D virtual world (Riis, forthcoming). Carlile (2002) proposed a hierarchical typology for boundary objects, and in our analysis, we identify different boundary objects in the two learning arenas. Our findings show that all categories of boundary objects can mediate knowledge according to the typology, which suggests a relational rather than a hierarchical view on boundary objects. Nonetheless, certain boundary objects in the 3D learning arena (study II), in particular the avatar, seem to promote transformation in a more embodied manner, which has implications for identity formation of the participants. Furthermore, the 3D virtual space affords a concrete materialised, albeit virtual, opportunity for reification, which is different to that of the 2D environment. In the paper we will elaborate on these differences and based on the two cases provide a typology of boundary objects serving networked learning organised as problem and project based learning.

As seen in this abstract, we aim to analyse and compare findings from two different studies conducted at the Master’s programme on ICT and Learning (MIL) which is situated at AAU. Study I has been conducted by Lone, where she has focused on MIL students’ use of a conventional 2D virtual learning environment, whereas study II is based on my PhD-research with MIL students in Second Life (SL).

In our current research project on ICT, transfer and boundary crossing in vocational education and training at the Metropolitan University College, my colleagues and I have been inspired by Lone’s (2006) study in which she explores Carlile’s (2002) typology of boundary objects in networked learning. While the empirical settings in both Lone’s study and in my PhD study (forthcoming) differ from our current research project, there are several theoretical overlaps. In should be noted that I did not study boundary objects and boundary crossing processes in my PhD. Nonetheless, when revisiting my PhD-findings this fall, I’ve found it possible and highly interesting to identify and analyse my data from this “new” perspective. And so this paper constitutes my first attempt to combine findings and ideas from my PhD and our current research. Given the differences in terms of target groups, educational settings and research aims, this is not an easy task, but it is quite exciting, and I’m very pleased to be able to collaborate with Lone on this.

According to Star (2010) a boundary object is an artefact that inhabits and bridge intersecting practices. In other words, one could argue that the theory and concepts of boundary crossing and boundary objects actually functions as a boundary object between my different research practices .. very meta ;-)

/Mariis

References

Carlile, P.R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 4, July-August 2002, pp. 442-455.

Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2006). Designing for Collaboration and Mutual Negotiation of Meaning: Boundary Objects in Networked Learning Environments. In Banks, S.; Hodgson, V.; Jones, C.; Kemp, B. & McConnell, D. (eds.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006: Symposium: Relations in Networks and Networked Learning, organised by Chris Jones. Lancaster University. pp. 1-9.

Goodyear, P.; Carvalho, L. & Dohn, N.B. (2016). Artefacts and Activities in the analysis of Learning Networks. In Ryberg, T.; Sinclair; Bayne, S. & de Laat, M. (eds.) Research, Boundaries, and Policy in Networked Learning. Springer. pp. 93-110

Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, Vol. 2, pp. 1-24. http://www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-2

Riis, M. (forthcoming). Avatar-mediation and Transformation of Practice in a 3D Virtual World – Meaning, Identity, and Learning. PhD-dissertation, Aalborg University.

Ryberg, T. & Sinclair, C. (2016). The Relationships Between Policy, Boundaries and Research in Networked Learning. In Ryberg, T.; Bayne, S. & de Laat, M. (eds.). Research, Boundaries, and Policy in Networked Learning. Springer. pp. 1-20.

Star, S.L. (2010), This is not a boundary object; Reflections on the origin of the concept. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25(5), 601-617.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

Challenges in designing for horizontal learning

Even though, my colleagues and I’ve presented our preliminary research results on several occasions, so far we’ve only presented in English once. In May 2016, I had the opportunity of presenting a short paper at the Designs for Learning conference in Copenhagen at AAU-CPH:

 

Our short paper can be found here (pp. 97-101)

/Mariis

For those readers who understand Danish, I’ve written a more detailed post about the conference on our Danish research blog.