The role of professional objects in technology-enhanced learning
Chapter 5 | 101 5.4 Conclusions and Discussion
5.4.1 Positioning the objects
Our analyses showed that the selected professional objects and technology played across the dimensions of acquisition-participation and simulation-reality,
throughout the project-based, technology enhanced learning environment. Towards the acquisitional dimension, the technology was used for one-way information about the more conceptual aspects of the objects. For example, the presentations about project management and making project plans were published online in the digital learning environments and learners used different online professional sources.
Towards the participative dimension, the technology was used to facilitate collaboration in the form of online workspaces and access to online professional communities. Also, the objects facilitated the collaborative interaction, both between members of a project team and participants outside of the team.
Towards the simulation dimension, technology was used more top-down by the educators: they made announcements online, published information and so on. The objects were used as guiding instruments by the educators, in the form of obligatory books and fixed formats for the project plan. Towards the reality dimension, the use of technology was left more open. The learners were given professional tools to work with and could use the online workspaces to their own convenience. The
professional objects could also be characterised as more realistic, especially the website, since it had to be developed for real web-users.
5.4.2 Feature and task analysis
To make the abstract concept of professional objects functioning as boundary objects in learning environments more concrete, the features of the objects were identified. Consequently, they were connected with the authentic mechanisms. The in-depth task analysis substantiated the connections. The analyses showed that there were many features that helped to activate the mechanisms of ‘articulate’ and ‘use expert performances’. Few features were connected with the mechanisms of ‘enact multiple roles and use multiple perspectives’, ‘collaboratively construct knowledge’
and ‘reflect’. When educators want to activate these mechanisms, careful selection of professional objects which can function as boundary objects is needed.
5.4.3 Addition to current literature
The intervention studied in this chapter is a project-based, technology-enhanced learning environment that can be characterised as authentic, in the context of higher education. We chose to focus on the instrumental perspective of these learning environments. Others also include this perspective in their studies. Van den Akker (2003) identifies 'materials & resources' as one of the ten curriculum components.
The definition of a learning environment from Goodyear (2001) includes 'tools, documents and other artifacts'. Helle et al. (2006) discuss the importance of 'constructing a concrete artefact' in forms of work-based learning.
In our studies we chose to further explore the role of concrete instruments or professional objects in learning environments to add to the insights in current educational literature. We studied how they functioned as boundary objects and helped to activate authentic mechanisms, which should lead to the intended learning outcomes of transferable knowledge and learning-, thinking, collaboration- and regulation-skills (Simons et al., 2000).
Chapter 5 | 102
Minimal guidance during instruction such as discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning and experiential learning is still controversial (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). With our studies into professional objects as instruments to help learners produce results, we showed that such objects offered guidance to learners.
5.4.4 Practical implications
By using the perspectives to analyse the role of the professional objects, educators can influence the mechanisms which need to be activated to reach the intended learning outcomes. The analyses showed that activating the mechanism of articulation was connected to many of the features of the objects, while the mechanisms of enact multiple roles and use multiple perspectives, collaboratively construct knowledge and reflect were connected to much less features. When educators feel there is more need to activate these mechanisms, they should explicitly take advantage of the few features that help to activate these mechanisms.
5.4.5 Future research
We carried out in-depth, qualitative research into the instrumental perspective of learning environments. Broader research is needed to complement our research.
Future research is needed to further develop the insights presented here. To start with, a broader variety of professional objects should be examined. Also, the activated mechanisms need to be systematically studied. These studies could lead to a typology of objects in relation to the mechanisms they activate. Next, the typology could be validated in a systematic way, by using it in quasi-experimental research.
This research would include different interventions, for example, with no explicit attention to objects and interventions with different objects. Measuring instruments would have to be developed or taken from current literature to measure whether and to what intensity the authentic mechanisms would be activated. Besides, the overall learning outcomes would have to measured, to ensure that the overall outcomes are also reached. Such research would lead to solid, concrete evidence about the relation between types of objects and activated mechanisms and be highly useful for daily educational practice.
5.5. References
Brennan, J. (2008). Higher education and social change. Higher Education, 56(3), 381-393.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319-336.
Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: notes and guidelines. Deliverable 9, Volume 3 of the Final Report to JCALT (Networked Learning in Higher Education Project).
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education–theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287-314.
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment?
In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic Learning Environments in Higher Education: Information Science Pub.
Chapter 5 | 103
Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic Learning Supported by Technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media
International, 44(3), 219-236.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies:
Realism and online authentic learning. Education, 19(1), 65-84.
Jonassen, D., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for Instructional Design. Mahwah, New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Prince (2003).
Sfard, A. (1998). On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Simons, P. R. J., Van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New Learning: Three Ways to Learn in a New Balance. In P. R. J. Simons, J. Linden van der & T. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 1-20). Dordrecht: ico, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
Star, S. L. (1992). The trojan door: Organizations, work, and the “open black Box”.
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 5(4), 395-410.
Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education:
An introduction. Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing, 1–15.
Tynjälä, P., Välimaa, J., & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the
relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education, 46(2), 147-166.
Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: an introduction. In J. Akker van den, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscape and trends. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39-61.
Yin, R. K. (2005). Case Study Methods. In J. Green, G. Camilli & P. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary Methods for Research in Education (3rd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Zitter, I., Kinkhorst, G., Simons, P.R.J., & Ten Cate, Th.J. (2009). In search of common ground: A task conceptualization to facilitate the design of (e) learning
environments with design patterns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 999-1009.
Zitter, I., De Bruijn, E., Simons, P. R. J., & Ten Cate, Th.J. (2009). Adding a design perspective to study learning environments in higher education. Manuscript submitted for publication.